Attorney Members Please Stand Up!

[Fearless]

DNForum has benefited from the arrival of many attorneys that specialize in domain name issues.

Some of you have slipped in here unnoticed by a lot of members.
Could each of you give me a post so all the members can see who to go to for legal advice.


Thanks,


Greg

[hhunterjr]

I don't claim to be an expert, but I know quite a bit about legal issues that can arise with domain names (i.e. Cybersquatting, TM Infringement, and TM dilution).

I learned much of what I know on a previous job about 3 years ago. I've kept up with domain name issues via research and self study. The main reason for me to keep up with domain name issues is because I own quite a few domains myself and these are displayed at http://www.domainterritory.com

I don't want to get into any legal troubles myself over domain names and so that's really why I try to stay informed about domain name issues.

Very Truly,

hhunterjr@yahoo.com

[Cyberights]

Greg, I am a solo attorney in Dallas, Texas who specializes in internet law, trademarks, copyrights, contracts and domain names disputes since 1998.

A new client of mine recommended your site as an excellent resource regarding domain name legal issues. This site is an excellent forum for all to learn from especially from the very experienced attorneys.

I have been "lying low" right now because I am learning what has been posted in the past and the proper etiquette for posts; I have been burned in the past when I was trying to clear up some issues for a client on a paintball forum. Talk about brutal, the participants had plenty of time and no reservations about slamming anyone, newbie, poser or hard-core paint baller.

At any rate, I believe I can contribute to this forum and will make my presence known. btw, if anyone knows a great copyright forum, please let me know.

Regards,
David M. Dingeman, Esq.
Dallas, Texas
http://www.cyberights.com

[pljones]

Greg,

I'm an associate in Washington, DC. Those interested can read more at http://www.sgbdc.com and http://www.udrplaw.net

[Fearless]

Originally posted by Cyberights
I am a solo attorney in Dallas, Texas who specializes in internet law, trademarks, copyrights, contracts and domain names disputes since 1998.

Fantastic David. I hope your rates are good. I moved to Texas from Louisiana and my attorney in Louisiana can't do anything beyond UDRP if I want to pursue legal action if I lose.

[LawyerSturgeon]

Many of you know me. I have handled a lot of UDRP disputes - winning more than 50. I also litigate in Virginia – which is a wonderful jurisdiction for initiating lawsuits to reverse UDRP decisions and to obtain the transfer of domain names worldwide. (Since the registry database is located in Virginia, the courts can require the transfer of domain names irregardless of the location of the registrant).

In addition to domain name disputes, I work with trademarks, Internet law, contracts and general business law issues.

More details and news articles on my website Domain-Name-Dispute-Lawyers.com

Stephen H. Sturgeon, Esquire
Law Offices of Stephen H. Sturgeon & Associates, PC,
Washington, DC, Virginia, Maryland, Oklahoma & Massachusetts

[Ari Goldberger]

I've Been doing domain name disputes since 1997, cutting my teeth in this game defending myself against Hearst Corp.'s (publisher of Esquire magazine) challenge of my ESQwire trademark and ESQwire.com domain name. Following that, I worked as VP Business Development and Corporate Affairs of Mail.com, Inc. I've been out on my own since 2000.

I've been involved in hundreds of disputes and helped negotiate several six-figure domain name transactions, including one for over $1 million -- although that was back "in the day."

Always happy to talk and provide advice on legal and business issues at no charge.

Having said that, let me say that the domain owner legal community is a small one and I would recommend any of the quality lawyers on this forum.

Regarding the John Berryhill controversy. I respect and admire John and consider him a colleague and friend and a great lawyer. I'm sad to see him go but respect his decision.

[Fearless]

Thanks guys. I'm coverting you to Platinum status. Any more?

[Banned: bidawinner]

Originally posted by gregr
Thanks guys. I'm coverting you to Platinum status. Any more?

I am an attorney.... :swg:

[Fearless]

Originally posted by bidawinner


I am an attorney.... :swg:

Nice try.

[Fearless]

I need some feedback from the attorneys here. It seems no matter what I do, there are complaints. First there were threads saying that they hope the attorneys don't have to pay. Then when I make the attorneys Platinum members so they would always have access to the legal section, members complain about that.

What I would like to know from the attorneys is have you gained customers as a result from being here. In other words, would you cover the $15/year membership fee with revenue you gained from being here? I just realized by creating this post that the $15/year Gold account is all you require so for now I'm upgrading you to a free Gold account.
I know some you just arrived and or have limited posts so it's understandable if you haven't picked up a customer here.

Depending on the feedback, I may become an Indian giver. Technically, I guess I already am by bumping you back to Gold.

[stevo]

Originally posted by chatcher
Greg,

I am not an attorney, and I have paid the platinum fee. I have no problem with you giving free membership to anyone you want to, for any reason.

If I owned DNForum, I would create three levels of membership. The lowest level would be free guest membership, and would allow free read-only browsing of almost all content. This would be the default level for new non-paying members. Possibly they would not even need to register for this level of access.

The second membership level would allow posting messages, including domains for sale, attending auctions, and all other essential functions. I would grandfather all existing members to this second level, so they basically could continue using DNForum as they always have. I would also make the cost for new members very low.

The third level would be optional and more expensive, and would include such unnecessary perks such as avatars, custom titles, private sections, mainly for those who want to show their support of the forum. Allow them to list more than two domains in an auction, buy discounted Snapbacks, etc. Mainly nice-to-have rewards for their support, but nothing a regular member really needs to have. It could be a status symbol, and you could give away free upgrades to regular members who are particularly valuable to the forum.

Trying to make existing members pay for what they already have is a losing proposition, and fewer members translates into a less valuable resource for everyone. There is a critical mass required for survival, and you never know what may upset the delicate balance.

This is only my opinion. I am one member who was happy to pay the platinum fee to support DNForum. I understand why some did not want to pay, and why others didn't want their contributions sold. I am very sorry to see both groups leave, if that's what they choose to do.

I know there is a lot of time and expense associated with running DNForum, and I think the users should support that in one way or another. But remember the real value to members is the thoughts and ideas expressed by other members, and if you are perceived as selling access to that you will ruffle a lot of feathers.

Chatcher

I could not have said it better myself. I am willing to pay because I have little to offer and much to gain. I'm concerned that we may lose valuable members with much to offer.
(I know that this is off topic, just had to comment.)

[Mr Webname]

Originally posted by stevo


Chatcher

I could not have said it better myself. I am willing to pay because I have little to offer and much to gain. I'm concerned that we may lose valuable members with much to offer.
(I know that this is off topic, just had to comment.)

Makes sense to me too.
I have to say though that anyone can get discounted "snaps" without belonging to anything so I don't see the need to "charge" for this unless it's below other "resellers" charges, but revenue gained from advertising, avatars etc and an auction fee (same as any normal auction), even possibly a small sales charge/% could be viewed as a legitimate charges for genuine "extras".
I strongly disagree with charging to browse the forum, and believe that would be counter-productive.
All should be registered and maybe those who are permitted to bid on auctions could have to supply some form of verifiable ID, inc verifiable email address (ie not hotmail/yahoo etc).

[Ari Goldberger]

Greg-

Since 1997 I have been providing advice free of charge to the domain owner public, partly as a service that is appreciated but also, obviously, as a marketing tool. This is an awesome forum that helps me continue this service in a new and different way. I also can learn a lot here. The nominal fee you seek to charge is a non-issue to me. I'm sure it would be made back. Moreover, the amount of time I and others put in responding to the issues that are raised here amounts to substantially more value than the small amount you charge.

Do what you think is necessary, and let the market decide. It is admirable that you seek input but, ultimately, this is your operation, and you should have the right to make the call.

On another note, it's interesting that this pay/no-pay ad/no ad issue is similar to the ones raised a few years ago when the first banner ads appeared on the Internet. As free web sites grow in popularity, costs increase and they need to be covered in some way. I faced this same issue at Mail.com, when we debated for months whether to charge for different services or be free.

[mole]

Hey Ari, if I ever run into any legal issues, I will definitely seek your services above John and Howard. I noticed you do a good job on protecting .biz

[LawyerSturgeon]

I will be glad to pay a fee. You are providing a good service for all of us. I will be happy to help reimburse you for your time, costs and initiative.

I do not think that a fee waiver will have much effect on attorney participation.

It is a nice gesture, however.

Thanks - but a fee is fine with me.

Stephen H. Sturgeon, Esquire
Domain-Name-Dispute-Lawyers.com

[Duke]

There is something very disturbing about these comments from Ari and Steve. It almost seems like they are endorsing "capitalism"

In another thread someone said it wasn't fair to give the attorneys a free pass because it means you are saying their input is more valuable than ours. They are overlooking one major point. The attorneys are giving us highly specialized information we would otherwise have to pay for (and pay a good bit more than a nominal membership fee). As a simple courtesy to them, a free membership is the least a forum owner should provide as a sign of appreciation.

I have no problem with Mr. Berryhill's stance and I will miss him. I am also extremely appreciative that guys like Ari and Steve have a slightly different view and that we will be able to continue to benefit from their contributions.

[GeorgeK]

Ditto, Duke.

As far as I know, Howard and John still have board access, so should they change their minds in the future they'd be free to post again.

[edisaacson]

Well I'm hoping to pass the bar this July, but as a Trademark paralegal for the last 5 years and Trademark researcher for 2, I also can offer anything I can to help other members here.

Ed

[Fearless]

Originally posted by Ari Goldberger


Since 1997 I have been providing advice free of charge to the domain owner public

Ari, I must have been one of your first freeloaders.

I would have been a paying customer but I got sued in California.
Thanks for your great advice though and thanks for your participation here.