AOL.TV Network - Digital Publisher & Distribution

Response Is Coming Soon

 If someone went into one of your investment accounts (savings, checking, investments, domain names, etc) that you paid for and a Company sold you and took it right out of your account without your permission. Would you be mad?
                            " I Was! "
  I almost gave up, I was like how am I going to beat these guys. Then my boys saw how upset I was and asked what happened, I explained to them the situation and they could not understand how that could happen and then they got mad and told me Dad do not let these Big Companies do that to you. So here I am, I didn’t know how I was going to do it but now I have no doubt these names are ours and we want them back.

Thank You

Lion Versus Tiger - The best bloopers are here 

  So to everyone out there, Never Give Up On Your Dreams, no matter how crazy anyone thinks you are for dreaming, dreams do come true. Just keep believing and have faith.

  In December 2004 the name “Aol.tv” was transferred from Mr. Tapia’s account without his permission, and he lost all control of his name (Domain Name) and now he wants it returned.

  In July 2005 the name “Moneycentral.tv” was transferred from

Mr. Tapia’s account without his permission, and he lost all control of his name (Domain Name) and now he wants it returned.

Anybody with a conscience will see both of these Companies are wrong about our investments being done in bad faith. The only reason we are letting go of 2-3 of our domain names is to help others and help build Our Company to continue helping others.

In the UDRP - all 3 accusations must be proven. The UDRP has been favoring the big corporations in the past. Well I now see the Pendulum about to change, at least for the righteous. By them taking the names out of Mr Tapia's account, without  permission, they gave us the right to a Civil Case and when we succeed in in proving that the accusations of Mr.Tapia being a "Cybersquatter" are totally false, and when we succeed with what is "Coming Soon" - Mr. Tapia's response to a 3rd Large Company.

"Cybersquatter" - No

 "Reverse Domain Name Hijacking"

The Respondent suggests that a finding of reverse domain name hijacking is appropriate in these cases. This is defined in the Definitions section of the Rules as “using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name”.

Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides as follows:

“If after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.”

The Consequences of being a "Reverse Domain Name High Jacker" - In a civil case, the possibility of substantial monetary damages - even the possibility of losing their own domain name.

Civil Action in US Court
In the United States, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) 15 U.S.C. 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(v) permits the domain name holder the exclusive remedy to bring a civil action when their domain has been suspended, disabled, or transferred as a result of an ICANN proceeding, in order to establish that their use of the domain is not unlawful. The court is authorized under the statute to grant injunctive relief to the registrant, including reactivation or transfer of the domain to the registrant. Id. At this time, a registrant will generally bring a declaratory judgment action, based on “reverse domain name hijacking” 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(v) [ii] seeking injunctive relief.




Submission to the Workshop on Internet Governance
26-27 February 2004

First Law of the Internet
Author: Karl Auerbach, former North American publicly elected Director, ICANN

I would like to suggest that in our inquiry into governance of the internet that we ought to consider the adoption of certain guiding principles.

Several times over the last few years I have referred to a formulation that I call "The First Law of the Internet".

I believe that this First Law represents an appropriate balance between the public and private effects of internet activity.

The First Law of the Internet:

Every person shall be free to use the Internet in any way that is privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental.

The burden of demonstrating public detriment shall be on those who wish to prevent the private use.

Such a demonstration shall require clear and convincing evidence of public detriment.

The public detriment must be of such degree and extent as to justify the suppression of the private activity.




God Bless,
"Si Dios Quiere"

“We have GOD, Earth, and the Future of the World that binds us all, and when we pray together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of  "YOUR GOD.”