THE ISSUE:The key issue is: have the actions of others, for example through negligence,
damaged or diminished the value of a product which people have spent money on. This
value to include: (a) money already spent (b) reasonable expectation of further value
that may accrue, when calculated broadly or statistically, and applied to an individual
or a group.
THE TEST CASE: In the case of William Lorenz's 'in error' applications,
as representative of other cases to follow and in order to establish precedence,
can a person or company - Hal Lubsen or the companies he represents - be held liable,
through negligence on several levels, for the registration of 59 names on behalf
of said William Lorenz, when these names were clearly void and ineligible and manifestly
not applicable. This negligence - the registration of a domain name with NO Trademark
and an ineligible date, 59 times, to the damage of other parties - was carried out
jointly by Domain Bank and Afilias, for both of which companies, Mr Hal Lubsen may
be deemed liable and brought to account. This case to be brought as a test for others
to follow : the value of the products in these subsequent cases amounting to over
$1,000,000 in monies already paid, and $100,000,000 in reasonable expectation of
realisable value.
PROPOSAL: That an injunction be brought to stay the process called
"Start Up" - in common terms "Landrush" - until such time as this issue is brought
to judgement (including time made necessary for appeal procedures) on the reasonable
grounds that to proceed with "Start Up" will result in irreparable loss and damage
to the claimants (as representative of many other cases and claimants also requiring
a judgement, and also needing a court intervention to stay the process set for commencement
Sept 12th.
THE EVIDENCE: That money has been paid. That the product will be diminished
by the negligence resulting in Mr Lorenz's registrations. That these registrations
were avoidable and indeed rendered void by their failure to meet transparently clear
criteria. That the responsible parties for the negligence were, jointly, Domain Bank
and Afilias. That these parties were subsequently negligent as well, in failing to
delete the void registrations. That this negligence was compounded by the failure
of Afilias to set in place reasonable protective measures in their Sunrise procedures,
and by the failure of Domain Bank to set in place reasonable procedures for checking
their own submissions. That viable alternative solutions were available for Afilias
to protect the interests of the damaged parties.
THE CASE FOR AN INJUNCTION: is
overriding. Because of the scale of the damages, for which this case sets precedence.
And because of the clear evidence of negligence in the case in hand.
Rachel