[90236] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Thu May 11 14:18:18 2006
To: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 11 May 2006 12:57:36 CDT."
<200605111757.k4BHvaep014042@s25.firmware.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 14:17:47 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1147371467_2474P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, 11 May 2006 12:57:36 CDT, Robert Bonomi said:
> Note also: attempting to impose additional restrictions on _existant_,
> registered domains would likely constitute breach of contract. With
> big liabilities attached -- look at what the hijacking of 'sex.com' ended
> up costing the registrar that let it happen.
So for those of us who tuned in late, when did it happen, when was the
registrar assessed the costs of letting it happen, and what were those
costs? And what effect did it have on other registrars to make them
tighten up their procedures so they wouldn't be complicit in domain
hijackings?
--==_Exmh_1147371467_2474P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFEY3/KcC3lWbTT17ARAje4AKCiBk+bs1x5VJLaOu6eK/ihn5WOcgCdHW3/
yTrlGOs2tPF/BJFR2hxvZm4=
=fZe6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1147371467_2474P--
