MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain

Thu May 11 18:17:47 UTC 2006

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?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20060511/eeb7222f/attachment.sig>