RFC_Violation: You saw it here first! From: jamie@intuition.iagnet.net (Jamie Rishaw) I've been a longstanding cheerleader for the NIC, but
That was your first mistake. Although what can one expect from someone who brags about violating RFCs?
Today, without notice, the InterNIC turned "off" the domain name NASA.COM, a domain which had been registered now for over two years.
May I suggest that your customer sue, not the FTC or NASA, but the Internic for violation of the contract. You paid a fee, they are required to follow their own procedures. You should be able to get quite a bit for actual and punitive damages. And you would be doing all the rest of us a service, by setting a precedent. We really cannot have Internic becoming an extension of the US government, or making arbitrary actions. But enforcement of contracts generally requires a court. As far as I can see, you wouldn't even have to prove that NASA.COM was "in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression". That would be up to NASA and/or FTC, should Internic get them to come to the court (third party cross complaint, perhaps). Although, for curiousities sake, what did this NASA stand for, and what was their product? WSimpson@UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson@MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2
William Allen Simpson writes...
As far as I can see, you wouldn't even have to prove that NASA.COM was "in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression". That would be up to NASA and/or FTC, should Internic get them to come to the court (third party cross complaint, perhaps).
There are indeed two cases here now: 1. Is NASA.COM violating the law? 2. Did NSI violate the terms of the contract? If there is no valid pre-existing justification for the letters NASA held by those who ran NASA.COM, then I'd probably end up deciding that they were in violation of the law. But given the late manner of pointing this out, they would not be found to be causing damages that they could control. NASA.GOV has had plenty of time to form a legal case against NASA.COM and get them cut off, and didn't do so, so I would not consider any expediency or damages as appropriate here. Likewise, I would be ruling against NSI for the actual loses, although not likely any punitive damages, for failing to provide for a transition period of 30 days (starting when a new registration goes online), when in fact they had plenty of opportunity to do so, and most certainly have the technical capacity to do so. But then, I'm not the judge in the case, nor am I a lawyer, so you'll have to put yourself in the same position and figure it out for yourself. Keep in mind that what we are hearing over the net may not be the whole story, and were this to have truly followed the due process course it should have, entirely different facts may have come out. I certainly believe had NSI followed its own policy, there would be a very weak case, if any at all, against it. Were NSI's policy better formulated, there would be virtually no cases against it.
Although, for curiousities sake, what did this NASA stand for, and what was their product?
I have several ideas. But none are appropriate for a family-oriented mailing list. I have no interest in taking a peek at the site. -- Phil Howard KA9WGN +-------------------------------------------------------+ Linux Consultant | Linux installation, configuration, administration, | Milepost Services | monitoring, maintenance, and diagnostic services. | phil at milepost.com +-------------------------------------------------------+
There are indeed two cases here now: 1. Is NASA.COM violating the law? 2. Did NSI violate the terms of the contract?
In the 2x2 result matrix, how should i configure my routers differently?
In all 4 cases we have: router bgp 5413 neighbour n.n.n.n remote-as 7777 neighbor n.n.n.n ebgp-multihop 30 neighbor n.n.n.n distribute-list 99 out neighbor n.n.n.n route-map blackhole-spammers in but I don't think Paul counts off-topic postings as suitable list candidates yet :-( Alex Bligh Xara Networks
On Sat, 12 Jul 1997, William Allen Simpson wrote:
May I suggest that your customer sue, not the FTC or NASA, but the Internic for violation of the contract. You paid a fee, they are required to follow their own procedures. You should be able to get quite a bit for actual and punitive damages.
And you would be doing all the rest of us a service, by setting a precedent. We really cannot have Internic becoming an extension of the US government, or making arbitrary actions. But enforcement of contracts generally requires a court.
As far as I can see, you wouldn't even have to prove that NASA.COM was "in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression". That would be up to NASA and/or FTC, should Internic get them to come to the court (third party cross complaint, perhaps).
Although, for curiousities sake, what did this NASA stand for, and what was their product?
Just FYI, The Hackers Defense Fund (http://www.hackerz.org) has a class action lawsuit against The InterNIC for some reason or another. I don't know where they are at with it, but I saw Mike Roadancer this weekend, and he said that it was going well... Joe Shaw - jshaw@insync.net NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services "Learn more, and you will never starve." - Paraphrase of Lee
participants (5)
-
Alex.Bligh -
Joe Shaw -
Phil Howard -
randy＠psg.com -
William Allen Simpson