Transcript Nominet template

The story of Brad and Ches
Emily Taylor
Overview
• Background – the facts
• Relevance of the judgement for domain name registries
• Lessons learned
Factual background
Attacks on WHOIS
• January 2003, sustained data-mining attack on WHOIS
database, using multiple proxies
• 24 January 2003, Nominet takes “drastic and
unprecedented step” – suspension of WHOIS service.
• Late February 2003, mailout to over 50,000 .uk
registrants
• Nominet receives hundreds of complaints
• Many believed them to be renewal notices
• Nominet received some cheques
Registrant’s name and
address
SAMPLE
Registrant’s name and
address
“Errors precisely match errors in
.uk database records as at
January 2003”


Central London
address
“SW1Y 4J5”
Telephone number leads
to Australian-sounding
answer-phone message
HQ Global: contact Louise Sheppard on 020 7814 7349, who passed me to Michelle Simon,
Director of Ops. She confirmed that UKIR had been client but had been served notice when TSD
(et al) started investigation. Mail handing client - based in Australia. Has sent details, including and
email which they were sent by Chesley Rafferty accusing us of slander.
Tag Holder
TUCOWS-CA
WHOIS - DNS
Internet as
a source of
information
Contact Email
WHOIS address
Website gives address as
(UK) Internet
Registry Ltd
- Seyshelles Co
No 011340
Sent/sent by
Invoices
Forwarding
address
almost
identical to
Is On
isOn
Refers to ‘brad’ in email
Chesley
Rafferty
WHOIS - DNS
Contact name
WHOIS-DNS
Same AU
mobile
number
Website
forwards
to
WHOIS
details
Registered
Through
Director
Brad(ley)
Norrish
registrations.com
BN
confirmed
link in
interview
TPP Registrar
Contact details email
eNom
Registered Through
Registered To
brad.com.au
Contact email @wasp
registrant
Registrant email:
[email protected]
wasp.au.com
West Australian
Service Provider:
Russ Cavell
iregistrations.com
WHOIS-DNS
WHOIS - DNS
Registrant Contact name
ira.com.au
WHOIS _ DNS
conceptual.net.au
Conceptual Internet
Australia Pty Ltd
Misleading Invoices
PO Box 360
Osborne Park
WA6917
Australia
Refers to
internetregistry.com.au
WHOIS-DNS
WHOIS-DNS
WHOIS-DNS
zoneedit.com
internetregistrynz.com
Domain Names Australia Pty Ltd
ACN: 102562649
Registered To
domainsaustralia.com.au
WHOIS-DNS
WHOIS - Contact email
webregister.com.au
Contact email
internetlink.com.au
WHOIS - DNS
Registered
to Pty Ltd
Internet Registrations
Australia
Internet Registry Pty Ltd t/a
‘Netregister’ and
‘Webregister International’
Contactregistered
email at to
dnsworldwide.com
Is a director of
Misleading
Invoices
Website at
Trouble with
auDA
Registrant email
[email protected]
Registered to
Australian Domain
News Article: IRA to
provide refunds after
Australian
Competition
Commission
investigation re:
renewal notices
Registered through
Registered through
Challenger
Registration
Services
WHOIS
Domain Names
Australia, 167 Collins
Street, Melbourne
3000
P: +61. 396 605 900
F: + 61 396 86 22 99
WHOIS details
DNSO
complaint
Registered through
about
Contact Details: PO Box
6122 Perth WA 6892
P: + 61.89 22 52 100
F: + 61. 8921 89980
E: [email protected]
Email
sender
address
domain
irww.com
Internet
Registrations
World Wide
Email address at
Diverse
Internet
di.com.au
Email?
WHOIS-DNS
.us Cybersquatting
Address
given as
Office is: Office 14,
First Floor, Trinity
House, Victoria,
Mahe, Seychelles
Article links to
euregistrars.com
Registr Add: 1040 Avenue of
the Americas, New York, NY
10018, USA
P: (per.uk) +61.403 289 113
P: (per.com) +61 892252100
F: (per com) 61.89 22 57 275
.us domains reg by
Norrish at
Contact numbers on
WHOIS
registrations.
com.au
WHOISDNS
s
r .u s
. fo ion
Co trat
is
reg
SW1Y 4J5
WHOIS
contact
name
Is website for
Their email
In email, CR
calls UKIR
‘we’
P: 0800 0360059
F:0800 036 0058
Registered To
Tech Address
ukinternetregistry.com
Registered To
Is On
Return address is
ukinternetregistry.co.uk
Ran Address
33 St
James’s
Square
TNT Australia - contact
Hilton Chapman
hilton.chapman@tn
t.com.au
Trial on liability – June 2004
Events just before trial
• 4 defendants admit liability on the Friday before the
trial, but still contend that the notices were not
deceptive
• Bradley Norrish contests all liability
• The defendants don’t intend to cross examine any
witnesses, and lead no evidence themselves.
Judgment on liability, September
2004
Relevance to domain name registries
• There is copyright in the register database, AND the
Whois database
– Importance of copyright assignments
– What’s the position for split registries (eg auDA)?
• The term “registry” has a specific meaning within the
DNS
“...even if unaware of the
existence of Nominet UK,
would be aware of the
existence of a single
administrator” for .uk
Also of interest…
• Quotes from RFC 1591
– “Dr Postel succinctly described the DNS thus…”
• Quotes from CENTR position on WHOIS, and WIPO ccTLD
Best Practices
– Relevant in establishing that information about domain
name registrations is made available free of charge
through WHOIS
The evidence against Brad
• Domain name records with SWIY 4J5 link to Brad
• E-mails from January 2003, showing Brad was involved
in the design of the notices
• About a returned cheque from the London office, Brad
says:
“If this happens at piccadilly I’m going straight over there”
• French J, “It lies beyond the limits of credulity to
suppose that Mr Norrish had no idea”
Judgment on damages,
December 2005
• Damages of AU $810,953 for infringement of copyright
– “notional licence fee”
– Doesn’t matter that we would never have licensed
– The database “lay at the heart of Nominet’s business”
– “The significance of the Database was illustrated by the
lengths to which Nominet had gone to keep it
confidential and to prevent it from being copied”
Judgment on damages
• Additional damages for flagrancy of breach AU $500,000
– Equal highest ever awarded by an Australian court
– “I accept…the need to deter similar infringements of
copyright”
• Costs
Lessons learned
• Conducting litigation across national borders
• Using offline laws
• Getting the interest of the relevant authorities
Australian
Competition
and Consumer
Commission
Brad and Ches
Summary
• Use of “offline” intellectual property laws to take action
against scammers.
• Use of legal action to raise profile, and deter others
• Difficulties in getting relevant authorities to take action
• Disruptive power of legal action