[ga-abuse] William X. Walsh - Eric Dierker

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

Complaint Against William X. Walsh (re: Eric Dierker)
Grounds:  Personal Attack, Insults and Slander
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:23:43 -0700
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03087.html

> While I agree with your analysis of hi-tek's misleading statements
> about their relationship with .vn (I've been in private correspondenc
> also with Erik also, where I know for a fact he made several
> misrepresentations of the actual facts of the .vn situation),

Patrick Corliss





----- Original Message -----
From: William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
To: Stefan Probst <stefan.probst@gmx.net>
Cc: General Assembly of the DNSO <ga@dnso.org>; Eric Dierker
<Eric@hi-tek.com>; <eric@vnnic.com>; Thomas Johnson <thomas@hi-tek.com>;
Sheldon Silverman <ssilverm@san.rr.com>; <lee@hi-tek.com>; <ttmivn@vnn.vn>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:23:43 -0700

Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Nomination for representative to the NC Review TF -
Eric Dierker (fwd)


Hello Stefan,

While I agree with your analysis of hi-tek's misleading statements
about their relationship with .vn (I've been in private correspondence
also with Erik also, where I know for a fact he made several
misrepresentations of the actual facts of the .vn situation),
remember, the .vn registry is the one who has decided (like over 60
other ccTLDs) to permit foreign registrations.  Hi-tek can't be
faulted for that.

> On-line credit-card payments need https protocol, which includes
> encryption. Encryption is by the letter of the rules usually illegal (all
> the customers would need a permission). Will Hi-Tek get the rules changed
> first, or just produce again another factum which defies the rules?

Where do you get this from?

Encryption is not illegal.  It think you have a misunderstanding here.
High grade encryption was illegal to export from the US, but
SSL/https protocols were still available, and are still available.
And in any event, the US has relaxed the export controls extensively.
With the exception of a few countries now, the browser makers can
distribute high level encryption with their products to anyone (And
do).

But in any event, .vn is merely loosening the restrictions on their
domain, and I can't say that I would blame hi-tek for that, if you
choose to want to blame anyone.

The registry makes that decision.

They do not need a dispute policy, most ccTLDs say they abide by
rulings of courts of competent jurisdiction over the registry or the
registrant, and that's it.  This UDRP nonsense in gTLDs is something
supralegal that shouldn't be encouraged for ccTLDs to use.

As for whois, that is also optional for the registry.  There is
nothing binding them to do it, but I'm sure they will, after all,
whois is one of the easiest things to implement.

--
Best regards,
William X Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html