Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1075
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, March 12 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1075

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 02:39:15 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Current state of whois task force work

For the current state of things with respect to the whois task 
force, please have a look at <http://does-not-exist.org/whois/>.

Thanks, and good night,
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 18:10:26 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Sen. Burns to the Chair of the Commerce Committee

Hello,

- --- Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]> wrote:
> The US never really had any intention of handing control
> over the root to anyone, least of all an
> pseudo-international body a.k.a. ICANN.  

Personally, I have no problems with US control over the root. Having it
in the hands of a stable democracy with a mature legal system seems
preferable to that of a quasi-UN board, with unknown intentions and
difficult enforcement mechanisms. I prefer the devil I know, I suppose.
:) [I'm Canadian, by the way, so supporting the Americans isn't a
nationalistic thing for me]

What's important, though, is to not let the beast get out of control.
It's mandate should be limited to the technical issues, without policy
creep into areas beyond its scope.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 21:18:33 -0500
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Some issues raised by today's FTC action

> being viewed as a "regulator" by US Government agencies?  Are all
> domains in
> the alternate roots now at risk?  On what basis is the claim
> being made that
> domains not in the legacy root "are not usable on the Internet" and will
> probably never be usable?

Because the ones being sold by the people in this indictment were never a
part of any operating root server system, alternate or otherwise.

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

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 21:14:54 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Sen. Burns to the Chair of the Commerce Committee

George Kirikos wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> --- Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > The US never really had any intention of handing control
> > over the root to anyone, least of all an
> > pseudo-international body a.k.a. ICANN.
> 
> Personally, I have no problems with US control over the root. Having it
> in the hands of a stable democracy with a mature legal system seems
> preferable to that of a quasi-UN board, with unknown intentions and
> difficult enforcement mechanisms. I prefer the devil I know, I suppose.
> :) [I'm Canadian, by the way, so supporting the Americans isn't a
> nationalistic thing for me]

I'm Canadian as well!  Perhaps Canada should run the root?

> 
> What's important, though, is to not let the beast get out of control.
> It's mandate should be limited to the technical issues, without policy
> creep into areas beyond its scope.

Fat chance of that!  

- -- 
Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Hermes Network Inc.
	Toronto, Canada

- ----
direct: 416.422.1034

icq: 34564103
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 21:17:55 -0500
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Some issues raised by today's FTC action

I agree with the concerns about "ICANN approved" and "regulators" and
"accredited domain name registrars"

The credit card protest or charge back window is actually 6 months.

Those are larger issues, apart from the specific .usa example.

Does that mean that New.NET is not an "accredited domain name
registrar," and subject to the same action?

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of John
Palmer
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 7:59 PM
To: Ga
Subject: Re: [ga] Some issues raised by today's FTC action

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Schneiders" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Some issues raised by today's FTC action

> On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, at 13:26 [=GMT-0500], [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > The action taken by the FTC today to shut down the .usa website 
> > raises a number of issues.  The FTC alleges that the companies 
> > involved are not accredited domain name registrars, that the ".usa" 
> > domain names are not usable on the Internet, and that they probably 
> > never will be useable.
> >
> > Since when did ICANN accreditation become a necessary precondition 
> > to providing domain name registration services?  Is ICANN as a
"coordinator" now
> > being viewed as a "regulator" by US Government agencies?  Are all
domains in
> > the alternate roots now at risk?  On what basis is the claim being 
> > made
that
> > domains not in the legacy root "are not usable on the Internet" and 
> > will probably never be usable?
>
> Yes, that not being accredited is a bit weird. But the fraud of this 
> 'registrar' consisted mainly, in my eyes solely, in the domains not 
> working. There were no nameservers for them. They simply 'sold' a name

> and did not provide the service, to wit DNS. The non-ICANN TLD's, 
> which are carried by alternative roots, do have nameservers. So they 
> do work.  The service is provided, even if one has to use an 
> alternative root to see them.
>

Their claim was that they were going to set up nameservers sometime in
2002. Thats convieniently after mosts people's 30/60 day legal right to
protest charges on their credit card had passed.

The issue here is that they did not disclose that the domains would not
be visible to a large part of the internet, except on areas of the
website that were too hidden or in too fine a print to satisfy the
requirements of federal law.

I find it comforting that statements made by FTC officials say that they
don't intend to go after inclusive namespace TLD registrars unless they
try to "deceive people into thinking that the domains will work like any
other Web Addresses" . http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-857033.html The
problem is that the public may turn away from inclusive namespace TLDs
without looking closer due to this. Thats life. We move on and continue
the education process about what ICANN is and who we are.

Legitimate registries have gtld servers for their TLDs and are listed in
at least one root server network (Thats easy - most inclusive RSNs dont
impose nonsense rules and charge $50k in lotteries to get listed).  The
ADNS .USA is alive and well and has been in existence since we filed our
application with Jon Postel and IANA back in September 1995.

John

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

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

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 18:21:55 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Some issues raised by today's FTC action

Monday, Monday, March 11, 2002, 10:26:17 AM, [email-masked] wrote:

> The action taken by the FTC today to shut down the .usa website raises a 
> number of issues.  The FTC alleges that the companies involved are not 
> accredited domain name registrars, that the ".usa" domain names are not 
> usable on the Internet, and that they probably never will be useable. 

> Since when did ICANN accreditation become a necessary precondition to 
> providing domain name registration services?  Is ICANN as a "coordinator" now 
> being viewed as a "regulator" by US Government agencies?  Are all domains in 
> the alternate roots now at risk?  On what basis is the claim being made that 
> domains not in the legacy root "are not usable on the Internet" and will 
> probably never be usable?

> Would this claim be applicable to all the registrations previously sold for 
> the internationalized domain names that didn't resolve during last year's 
> test-bed period?

It's high time the FTC looked at alt.root registries and the claims
they make in trying to solicit registrations, and establish some
rules.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --

"There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of
the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer
interprets the truth."
- -- Jean Giradoux

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

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 20:37:46 -0600
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Some issues raised by today's FTC action

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
To: "'John Palmer'" <[email-masked]>; "'Ga'" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 8:17 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Some issues raised by today's FTC action

> I agree with the concerns about "ICANN approved" and "regulators" and
> "accredited domain name registrars"
>
> The credit card protest or charge back window is actually 6 months.
>
> Those are larger issues, apart from the specific .usa example.
>
> Does that mean that New.NET is not an "accredited domain name
> registrar," and subject to the same action?
>
> Peter de Blanc
>

I think people are looking at this with both relief and a bit of waryness.

Yes, failing to properly disclose the visibility issues should allow the
govt
to take some consumer protection action, but we're all very interested in
who is behind this action. Was is Neulevel/ICANN pushing FTC? Is this
just the first step in a push to put legitimate Inclusive Namespace TLDs
out of business?

ICANN claims that they have no business worrying about the Inclusive
Namespace, but they lie. We all know that.

John

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

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 20:44:19 -0600
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Some issues raised by today's FTC action

William, I think the rules are already established and FTC alleges that
DOTUSA.COM violated the rules. Thats fine. Any legitimate, above
board registry will have no problem disclosing these things.

I could have $1 million dollars like TLD Networks if I wanted to
play dirty like FTC alleges they did. I would also be in just as
much trouble now as well.

Like any industry, some play fair and some don't. Its to the benefit
of all the honest businesses that fraudsters are put out of business.

As much as I don't like what TLDN did, we should also be reminded
that this case has not been tried yet and that these are only govt
allegations at this point.

John
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Some issues raised by today's FTC action

> Monday, Monday, March 11, 2002, 10:26:17 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > The action taken by the FTC today to shut down the .usa website raises a
> > number of issues.  The FTC alleges that the companies involved are not
> > accredited domain name registrars, that the ".usa" domain names are not
> > usable on the Internet, and that they probably never will be useable.
>
> > Since when did ICANN accreditation become a necessary precondition to
> > providing domain name registration services?  Is ICANN as a
"coordinator" now
> > being viewed as a "regulator" by US Government agencies?  Are all
domains in
> > the alternate roots now at risk?  On what basis is the claim being made
that
> > domains not in the legacy root "are not usable on the Internet" and will
> > probably never be usable?
>
> > Would this claim be applicable to all the registrations previously sold
for
> > the internationalized domain names that didn't resolve during last
year's
> > test-bed period?
>
> It's high time the FTC looked at alt.root registries and the claims
> they make in trying to solicit registrations, and establish some
> rules.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> --
>
> "There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of
> the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer
> interprets the truth."
> -- Jean Giradoux
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

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

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 22:00:38 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Court Shuts Down '.Usa' Internet Address Scam

Of course they resolve.  .USA is carried by Pacroot and ORSC roots.  
I'm not sure about other roots, but those are the most comprehensive 
roots in the world anyway.  Use the right DNS settings and they will 
resolve for you.

On 11 Mar 2002, at 11:13, Rick Wesson wrote:

> 
> Leah,
> 
> I can't get to any .usa websites, how come they don't resolve?
> 
> -rick
> 
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, L. Gallegos wrote:
> 
> >
> > It is interesting.  TLD Networks is the company operated by Goolnik, who
> > was the individual who "duplicated" the .USA and .GOD TLDs. However, he
> > never had operational servers so that they would resolve.  The holders of
> > those original TLDs pursued the issue legally as well.  The FTC went
> > after Goolnik because fo the spam and deceptive practices as well as the
> > fact that the domains did not resolve.  The original TLDs operated by
> > ADNS and PCCF are still going well and the domains resolve as they always
> > have.  Nether one does any spamming and both are clearly disclaimed as
> > being in roots other than the USG.
> >
> > Thanks, Danny, for bringing up the deceptive practices of some
> > scammers out there.
> >
> > Leah
> >
> >
> > On 11 Mar 2002, at 12:20, [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=technologynews&StoryID=6
> > > 8590 8
> > >
> > > Excerpt:
> > >
> > > A U.S. court shut down a Web site that capitalized on post-September 11
> > > patriotic fervor to sell fake Internet domain names with suffixes such
> > > as ".usa" and ".brit," the Federal Trade Commission said on Monday.
> > >
> > > A variety of defendants based in the U.S. and the United Kingdom
> > > launched an aggressive junk e-mail campaign that urged Internet users
> > > to sign up for the star-spangled addresses after the hijacking attacks
> > > of Sept. 11, the FTC said.
> > >
> > > The messages linked to a Web site, (http://www.dotusa.com), that urged
> > > users to reserve addresses such as www.surfin.usa that did not work,
> > > the FTC said.
> > >
> > > "These spam scammers conned consumers in two ways. They sent deceptive
> > > spam, and they sold worthless Web addresses from their Web sites," said
> > > J. Howard Beales, head of the FTC's consumer-protection division, in a
> > > statement. -- This message was passed to you via the [email-masked]
> > > list. Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe ("unsubscribe
> > > ga-full" in the body of the message). Archives at
> > > http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

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

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 19:01:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Some issues raised by today's FTC action

On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, John Palmer wrote:

> I think people are looking at this with both relief and a bit of waryness.
>
> Yes, failing to properly disclose the visibility issues should allow the
> govt
> to take some consumer protection action, but we're all very interested in
> who is behind this action. Was is Neulevel/ICANN pushing FTC? Is this
> just the first step in a push to put legitimate Inclusive Namespace TLDs
> out of business?

Actually the FTC was very vocal about launching actions against spammers
engaged in deceptive practices.

The party in question seems to fit the bill. Contrast this with other
alt.root operators who act responsibly, and I doubt you'll find much
to worry about.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
         Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

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

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 22:10:51 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Court Shuts Down '.Usa' Internet Address Scam

Leah and all assembly members,

  The .USA Domain names still resolve fine for me as of about
20 mins ago despite Louis touton's comments in Accra
regarding this announcement..  That's because Netcom/Earthlink
has a secondary list of IP addrs to allow for resolution.

L. Gallegos wrote:

> Of course they resolve.  .USA is carried by Pacroot and ORSC roots.
> I'm not sure about other roots, but those are the most comprehensive
> roots in the world anyway.  Use the right DNS settings and they will
> resolve for you.
>
> On 11 Mar 2002, at 11:13, Rick Wesson wrote:
>
> >
> > Leah,
> >
> > I can't get to any .usa websites, how come they don't resolve?
> >
> > -rick
> >
> > On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, L. Gallegos wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > It is interesting.  TLD Networks is the company operated by Goolnik, who
> > > was the individual who "duplicated" the .USA and .GOD TLDs. However, he
> > > never had operational servers so that they would resolve.  The holders of
> > > those original TLDs pursued the issue legally as well.  The FTC went
> > > after Goolnik because fo the spam and deceptive practices as well as the
> > > fact that the domains did not resolve.  The original TLDs operated by
> > > ADNS and PCCF are still going well and the domains resolve as they always
> > > have.  Nether one does any spamming and both are clearly disclaimed as
> > > being in roots other than the USG.
> > >
> > > Thanks, Danny, for bringing up the deceptive practices of some
> > > scammers out there.
> > >
> > > Leah
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11 Mar 2002, at 12:20, [email-masked] wrote:
> > >
> > > > http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=technologynews&StoryID=6
> > > > 8590 8
> > > >
> > > > Excerpt:
> > > >
> > > > A U.S. court shut down a Web site that capitalized on post-September 11
> > > > patriotic fervor to sell fake Internet domain names with suffixes such
> > > > as ".usa" and ".brit," the Federal Trade Commission said on Monday.
> > > >
> > > > A variety of defendants based in the U.S. and the United Kingdom
> > > > launched an aggressive junk e-mail campaign that urged Internet users
> > > > to sign up for the star-spangled addresses after the hijacking attacks
> > > > of Sept. 11, the FTC said.
> > > >
> > > > The messages linked to a Web site, (http://www.dotusa.com), that urged
> > > > users to reserve addresses such as www.surfin.usa that did not work,
> > > > the FTC said.
> > > >
> > > > "These spam scammers conned consumers in two ways. They sent deceptive
> > > > spam, and they sold worthless Web addresses from their Web sites," said
> > > > J. Howard Beales, head of the FTC's consumer-protection division, in a
> > > > statement. -- This message was passed to you via the [email-masked]
> > > > list. Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe ("unsubscribe
> > > > ga-full" in the body of the message). Archives at
> > > > http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 20:21:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Court Shuts Down '.Usa' Internet Address Scam

palmer - get in touch with me - we have to talk - been trying your
ameritec voice mail don't work.

i'm at 705-741-3414.  you should know that i provided the ftc with the due
dillegence on him and have known of the investigation for months - so has
our barrister lindon.

regards
joe baptista

http://www.dot-god.com/

The dot.GOD Registry, Limited
150 West 51st Street, Suite 908
New York City, New York 10019

On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, John Palmer wrote:

> A response to the FTC's actions: www.adns.net/NEWS/2002031101.html
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 11:20 AM
> Subject: [ga] Court Shuts Down '.Usa' Internet Address Scam
>
>
> >
> http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=technologynews&StoryID=685908
> >
> > Excerpt:
> >
> > A U.S. court shut down a Web site that capitalized on post-September 11
> > patriotic fervor to sell fake Internet domain names with suffixes such as
> > ".usa" and ".brit," the Federal Trade Commission said on Monday.
> >
> > A variety of defendants based in the U.S. and the United Kingdom launched
> an
> > aggressive junk e-mail campaign that urged Internet users to sign up for
> the
> > star-spangled addresses after the hijacking attacks of Sept. 11, the FTC
> > said.
> >
> > The messages linked to a Web site, (http://www.dotusa.com), that urged
> users
> > to reserve addresses such as www.surfin.usa that did not work, the FTC
> said.
> >
> > "These spam scammers conned consumers in two ways. They sent deceptive
> spam,
> > and they sold worthless Web addresses from their Web sites," said J.
> Howard
> > Beales, head of the FTC's consumer-protection division, in a statement.
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

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

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 00:32:19 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Some issues raised by today's FTC action

Peter and all assembly members,

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> I agree with the concerns about "ICANN approved" and "regulators" and
> "accredited domain name registrars"
>
> The credit card protest or charge back window is actually 6 months.
>
> Those are larger issues, apart from the specific .usa example.
>
> Does that mean that New.NET is not an "accredited domain name
> registrar," and subject to the same action?

  Good question.  But New.Net is not a registrar, it is a registry
that has is it's own Registrar as well.  A better question would
be "in that some ccTLD's that are not ICANN accredited registries
or registrars, could they be subject to the same action if a complaint
is filed?

>
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of John
> Palmer
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 7:59 PM
> To: Ga
> Subject: Re: [ga] Some issues raised by today's FTC action
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marc Schneiders" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 6:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Some issues raised by today's FTC action
>
> > On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, at 13:26 [=GMT-0500], [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> > > The action taken by the FTC today to shut down the .usa website
> > > raises a number of issues.  The FTC alleges that the companies
> > > involved are not accredited domain name registrars, that the ".usa"
> > > domain names are not usable on the Internet, and that they probably
> > > never will be useable.
> > >
> > > Since when did ICANN accreditation become a necessary precondition
> > > to providing domain name registration services?  Is ICANN as a
> "coordinator" now
> > > being viewed as a "regulator" by US Government agencies?  Are all
> domains in
> > > the alternate roots now at risk?  On what basis is the claim being
> > > made
> that
> > > domains not in the legacy root "are not usable on the Internet" and
> > > will probably never be usable?
> >
> > Yes, that not being accredited is a bit weird. But the fraud of this
> > 'registrar' consisted mainly, in my eyes solely, in the domains not
> > working. There were no nameservers for them. They simply 'sold' a name
>
> > and did not provide the service, to wit DNS. The non-ICANN TLD's,
> > which are carried by alternative roots, do have nameservers. So they
> > do work.  The service is provided, even if one has to use an
> > alternative root to see them.
> >
>
> Their claim was that they were going to set up nameservers sometime in
> 2002. Thats convieniently after mosts people's 30/60 day legal right to
> protest charges on their credit card had passed.
>
> The issue here is that they did not disclose that the domains would not
> be visible to a large part of the internet, except on areas of the
> website that were too hidden or in too fine a print to satisfy the
> requirements of federal law.
>
> I find it comforting that statements made by FTC officials say that they
> don't intend to go after inclusive namespace TLD registrars unless they
> try to "deceive people into thinking that the domains will work like any
> other Web Addresses" . http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-857033.html The
> problem is that the public may turn away from inclusive namespace TLDs
> without looking closer due to this. Thats life. We move on and continue
> the education process about what ICANN is and who we are.
>
> Legitimate registries have gtld servers for their TLDs and are listed in
> at least one root server network (Thats easy - most inclusive RSNs dont
> impose nonsense rules and charge $50k in lotteries to get listed).  The
> ADNS .USA is alive and well and has been in existence since we filed our
> application with Jon Postel and IANA back in September 1995.
>
> John
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 22:41:53 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Working together

I do not know about the average GA member but I do know this;

The average BoD member is fighting like hell to save his seat.

They are done, they are toast and we can only hope that they find a
floating board to get out of the water.
These are rats on a sinking ship.  Their own CEO has admitted failure
and end of mission and not one of them has refuted it.  Had the Apostles
done the same there would be no Christianity.

ICANN is over.  But the apparatus will remain in place for a good six
months.

let us get as much work done as we can in that short period. but let us
get ready for the fallout.

Sincerely,
Eric

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

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:02:41 +0000
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA meeting in Accra and remote participation

Dear list,

the physical GA meeting in Accra is over; we have
had presentations and discussion about domain
deletions, re-registration and transfer as well
as about the At Large situation. Several people
have been taking notes and I will try to see it
that they get posted as soon as feasible (the
lights just went out for some time, and the
wireless LAN seems to have trouble, too).

About remote participation: Regrettably, there
seems to be no opportunity for remote 
participation (as opposed to remote viewing/
listening). I assume that this system will 
also be used for the ICANN Public Forum
tomorrow. One way of routing around this would
be sending some comments you want to raise
to me (SHORT comments -- I may have the 
opportunity to read few comments and will
get dragged off if I read long monologues).
Please look at the Public Forum agenda
before sending your comments to [email-masked]
(did I mention that they have to be short?).

Best regards,
/// Alexander

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

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 13:34:27 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [fwd] [icann-europe] FYI: protocoll from gac to board meeting (from: [email-masked])

fyi
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- ----- Forwarded message from Andy Mueller-Maguhn <[email-masked]> -----

From: Andy Mueller-Maguhn <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:30:37 +0000
Subject: [icann-europe] FYI: protocoll from gac to board meeting
List-Id: <icann-europe.lists.fitug.de>
Mailing-List: contact [email-masked]; run by ezmlm

my protocoll from todays gac to board meeting can by found at

http://www.ccc.de/~andy/ICANN/Reports/2002/200203-accra/20020312gactoboard.html

regards,
A.

- -- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email-masked]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email-masked]

- ----- End forwarded message -----
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1075
*************************