Hi Lutz

I could say a lot about these situations, mostly not good. The internet
community is supposed to be self regulating. It simply does not happen
and registrars are many times the first ones to ask for LEA interference.

We need to ask why this happened, the background etc. Remember, at the
end of the day, a registrar is not above the law, as also stipulated in
the RAA despite what some people tend to think (or even some registrars
themselves).

My comments interspersed below:

Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just noticed a somewhat strange action of our local police department. The
> seemed to issue an order against a local registrar to change the domain owner
> located in a different country. Please note, that there is no court order.
>
Another registrar, Godaddy, sponsoring domains used for bank spoofs
replied as follows:
"We are more than happy to quickly comply with any court-issued order or
official request by law enforcement (whose burden it is to determine the
existence of illegal activities). We regularly work with courts and law
enforcement from the local to the international level. As a result, we
would recommend you seek an injunction from a court as the most
efficient way to handle this situation."

Note the court order "or" official request by law enforcement....
> IMHO the police officer prefered to take over the domain instead of taking
> the domain down or (best case) requesting international administrative
> assistance. I might be wrong.
>
I note the domain is on HOLD:
"Domain Name:bet3000.com
Created On:2003-06-02 15:18:55
Last Updated On:2008-12-02 10:32:26
Expiration Date:2010-12-01 04:59:59
Status:registrarHold"

Date is 2008-12-02 10:32:26 on my lookup and yours. So this was most
likely a delayed update to the registry.
> My question is: Does the ICANN allow registrars to change the holder instead
> of setting the domain on "hold" in such a situation?
>
It would depend on the background to the situation I guess.
> Situation from 2008-11-30 (http://www.whois.de/currentWhois/view/bet3000.com)
> Domain Name:bet3000.com
> Created On:2003-06-02 15:18:55
> Last Updated On:2008-06-03 03:32:10
> Expiration Date:2009-06-02 15:18:55
> Status:ok
>
> Registrant-ID:IBAL1-EPNIC
> Registrant-Name:International Betting Association Limited
> Registrant-Street:4 College Lane
> Registrant-City:Gibraltar
> Registrant-Postal-Code:4 College
> Registrant-Country:GI
> Registrant-Phone:+350.20052577
> Registrant-FAX:+350.20052782
> Registrant-Email:info@iba.gi
>
>
> Situation today (current whois)
> Domain Name:bet3000.com
> Created On:2003-06-02 15:18:55
> Last Updated On:2008-12-02 10:32:26
> Expiration Date:2010-12-01 04:59:59
> Status:registrarHold
>
> Registrant-ID:BD512-EPNIC
> Registrant-Name:Juergen Buessow
> Registrant-Organisation:Bezirksregierung Duesseldorf
> Registrant-Street:Cecilienallee 2
> Registrant-City:Duesseldorf
> Registrant-Postal-Code:40474
> Registrant-Country:DE
> Registrant-Phone:+49.2114750
> Registrant-Email:poststelle@brd.nrw.de
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
>

The above domain is not listed at the Gibraltar Regulatory Authority ,
though it may have been but is now removed:
http://www.gra.gi/index.php?article=135&topic=licences&section=licences&...
(A search finds no trace of it in search engine or like caches)

We note the same registrant does have a license for http://www.onextwo.com/

The registrar is in Germany, like the original billing contact and where
it appears enforcement action was taken.

Seems bet3000.com was previously known as bet3000.de - which shows a
German affiliation, now suspended by German LEA?

The gambling laws of Gibraltar are here:
http://www.gra.gi/sites/*gambling*/downloads/42/*gambling*%20ord%202005.pdf

The accountability issue on the Internet etc is a big mess quite
frankly. Many big internet players chanting the "self governance" mantra
are the same players tending to use LEA and court orders many times to
frustrate processes intended to protect the public. As such strange
things do tend to happen, not only harming the bad actors, but many
innocents in the process.

However, in this case no background information is known, so it is
virtually impossible to make any form of and educated guess.

Derek

_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

> My question is: Does the ICANN allow registrars to change the holder instead
> of setting the domain on "hold" in such a situation?

Nobody really knows.

There is a similar case in Kentucky in the US in which the state claims
that a long list of gambling domains are operating illegally in Kentucky,
and wants to take over all those domains. But none of them have any
operations in Kentucky, and most of them have no operations anywhere in
the U.S. The state is clearly completely wrong, but the judge is
proceeding cautiously, since it is rare for a state to file such a
completely meritless suit.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.

_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org