nanog mailing list archives
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 14:17:47 -0400
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?
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain, (continued)
- Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain Greg Taylor (May 12)
- Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain John Palmer (NANOG Acct) (May 12)
- Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain Warren Kumari (May 12)
- Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain John Palmer (NANOG Acct) (May 12)
- Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain Matt Ghali (May 13)
- Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain Derek J. Balling (May 11)
- Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain Todd Vierling (May 11)
- Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain Peter Dambier (May 12)
- Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain Valdis . Kletnieks (May 11)
- Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain Bill Stewart (May 15)
- Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain Barry Shein (May 12)