html5-img
1 / 7

Court Case Concerning DIFO's Role as .dk Registry – to be or not to be a valid registry

Court Case Concerning DIFO's Role as .dk Registry – to be or not to be a valid registry. Legal and Regulatory workshop 24. september 2010. Some history. DKUUG - Danish UNIX systems User Group was the first to start using domain names in DK

tegan
Download Presentation

Court Case Concerning DIFO's Role as .dk Registry – to be or not to be a valid registry

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Court Case Concerning DIFO's Role as .dk Registry –to be or not to be a valid registry Legal and Regulatory workshop 24. september 2010

  2. Some history • DKUUG - Danish UNIX systems User Group was the first to start using domain names in DK • Then DKUUG sold the registry to TDC – a Danish Telecommunication operator • A group of 10 internet-related organizations (including FIL – an ISP organization) signed in 1998 a Memorandum of Understanding – IDMOU regarding managing .dk • The Ministry of Science wanted a more legally established structure so DIFO and DK Hostmaster was established in 1999. • DIFO represents the consumers, the industry (suppliers) and the professional users • ICANN recognized DIFO as the Danish registry – helped by a letter from the Danish Ministry

  3. The court case • Between 2000 and 2010 the same registrar – Digital Marketing Support ApS (DMS) has sued the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, DIFO, DK Hostmaster and our accountant about 8 times all regarding the same issues. • He has taken the cases all the way to the Supreme Court and one case is taken to the European Court of Human Rights

  4. The allegations • DIFO/DKH has no license to manage the Danish .dk-domaine • DIFO/DKH has to recognize that the ”license-payment” were payment for fictitious performance and DIFO should return the money paid in 2000 – 2005 (1. and 2. involves the accountant) • DIFO/DKH has to pay damages to DMS for deleting domain names • DKH has to pay damages for changes DNS for a number of domain names

  5. The justifications from DMS • The Internet consists of many networks owned and managed by different parties many ISPs. Therefore the domain-name delegation is owned by the ISPs in Denmark. ICANN’s recognition of DIFO/DKH is not binding since the have no authority to recognize a Danish registry. ICANN is delivering standards that are voluntary to follow. ICANNs decisions are therefore not binding for the Danish ISPs. IANA is only a ”caretaker” with no rights to decide anything. The fact that DIFO/DKH does not use the Uniform Domain-name Dispute Resolution Policy underlines the non-binding character of ICANN.Therefore DIFO/DKH are guilty of process fraud because we have stated that we have the rights to manage the .dk-domain when we have no valid agreement with ICANN nor with the Danish ISPs. • Since DIFO/DKH has no mandate to manage the .dk-domain the accountant must know that the financial statements of DIFO and DKH were false and therefore the accountant is liable to DMS.

  6. The justifications from DMS • The letter from the Ministry recognizing DIFO as the Danish registry is not valid because the domaine name customers belongs to the ISP • The chairman of DIFO, Mads Bryde Andersen and Supreme Court judge Jon Stockholm have lied and deceived the Danish Folketing • Because of this fraud the Danish Domain Act is not valid either since the act is written by the same persons that DMS is accusing of process fraud. The act causes expropriation of the domain names.

  7. Other DMS court cases • DMS tried to have Supreme Court change their decision that gives the Ministry a right to issue the Danish Domain Act because the judges were disqualified because one of the Supreme Court judges was one of the writers of a Danish report that made the basis for the Danish Domain Act • This was rejected and this case is now being processed at the European Court of Human Rights.

More Related