Sex.com Saga Continues- At Least for a Couple More Weeks
   That Gary Kremen, the owner of sex.com will never see the $65 million
   the courts have awarded him in his legal battles against Stephen Cohen
   is almost a given. Now Kremen will have to wait a few more weeks to see
   what the 9th District Court of Appeals will come up with. Kremen
   yesterday presented a case in San Francisco in which he holds Network
   Solutions, a division of VeriSign accountable for the whole sex.com
   mess to begin with. It's Kremen's contention that Network Solutions
   never bothered to verify Cohen's forged request to transfer the domain
   from Kremen.
   Kremen is saying that the largest U.S. domain name registry should be
   held accountable for an error that put the Internet address in the
   hands of Cohen, a known con artist. In a hearing before a federal
   appeals court panel, Kremen's lawyers argued that Network Solutions
   committed a breach of contract when it failed to verify the forged
   request. "This all could have been prevented with a simple call or
   e-mail to Mr. Kremen saying: Did you authorize this?" said James
   Wagstaffe, the attorney for Kremen, who's seeking monetary damages.
   This is Kremen's second try at a court judgment against Network
   Solutions. Kremen lost the first case in May, 2000 when federal judge
   James J. Ware in San Jose, California ruled against him basing his
   decision in part on the fact that at the time Kremen registered the
   site, in 1994, domains were free. Ware contended that because Network
   Solutions was offered nothing of value in exchange for its efforts, it
   not should be held financially liable for its error. But Ware also held
   Cohen, liable to the tune of $65 million in largely uncollected
   damages. Cohen's attorneys were also in appellate court Tuesday,
   seeking to undo that ruling.
   In yesterday's appellate hearing, attorney Wagstaffe argued that even
   though Network Solutions didn't get money for registering the domain,
   it did get personal information about Kremen for its database.
   Wagstaffe said that should count as something of value. The company was
   also able to begin charging registrants shortly afterward, having
   developed its initial database of free registrations.
   Attorneys for Network Solutions, disagreed rejecting the argument that
   a domain name's entry in Network Solutions central domain name server,
   or DNS, constitutes proof of ownership of that Internet address.
   [1]http://www.generossextreme.com/
   Is this guy the matt Drudge of the naughties or what?
   [2]http://www.newarchitectmag.com/documents/s=2443/na0902f/index.html
   Study carefully,there will be questions.
   ICANN of Worms
   The Internet governing body is short on answers and out of time.

References

   1. http://www.generossextreme.com/
   2. http://www.newarchitectmag.com/documents/s=2443/na0902f/index.html