News.com is having this article today on sex.com's 6 years prolonged case...Sex.com case turning dirty (http://news.com.com/2100-1023-949660.html?tag=fd_top) ...

A couple of lines suggest me that verisign could also be held responsible for the unauthorised transfer it made to a fake owner...

In this phase of the legal saga, which has gone on for more than six years, the appellate judges are trying to decide VeriSign's culpability in the case.


What do you think..should verisign also take a part of the blame??

Post a poll. Then we can vote.

<<MOD NOTE: This has been added. Threads merged so ignore anything that doesn't seem quite right below.>>

hii,

Poll : good idea..

But I don't see an option, when i try to edit my first post to convert this thread to poll...?

Am i missing something ?

You have to request a moderator to do that for you.

Peter

Yes I think Network Solutions should be liable for something, but certainly not the full damages, as they didn't perpetrate the fraud.

Hii,

Whether verisign should take a part of teh blame in the sex.com fiasco ???
I have added a poll, please vote and try an explaination for ur choice ??

Thanks

If the same thing happened now, they should certainly be held responsible. But this happened a long time ago; it happened at a time when the idea that someone might fraudulently transfer "ownership" of a domain was simply not considered.

You have to judge their actions in light of the attitudes of the day; they made a mistake, but if you told them such a mistake would end up costing $50M they'd think you were crazy.

A couple of more informative links here :

1. Appeals court to hear suit against VeriSign (http://www.cw360.com/bin/bladerunner?REQSESS=Ug79325&2149REQEVENT=&CARTI=114978&CARTT=14&CCAT=2&CCHAN=28&CFLAV=1)

2. Sex.com Takes Aim at Registrar (http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,54514,00.html)

Thanks