Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1104
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, March 26 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1104

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

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 05:25:38 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA summary 2002-11

Your posts are going to ga-full just fine Eric.

So as usual, you are making much ado about nothing.

Tuesday, Tuesday, March 26, 2002, 5:13:46 AM, eric wrote:

> Well then Mr. Roessler,

> Your Chairmanship and inability to explain why this post does not go
> through either on the GA or GA-Full list.  Seems like news to me. 
> Especially after your
> repeated and unwarranted threats.  I think that banning someone from the
> ga-full for
> the first time is news.  I think that banning without explanation or
> posting it is
> pretty big news.

> You should also know I got both the ga-and ga-full mail. As you can see
> by
> the line below.

> Thomas Roessler wrote:

>> On 2002-03-25 18:29:32 -0800, eric wrote:
>>
>> >(sorry for the funny posting but as you all should Know by now I
>> >have been banned without process)
>>
>> This is not true.
>>
>> >Off course this is absurd and does not reflect what happened this
>> >last time period.
>>
>> Please provide a summary of what _you_ consider important.
>>
>> --
>> 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
> --
> 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

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.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: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 06:34:41 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA summary 2002-11

Tuesday, Tuesday, March 26, 2002, 6:30:00 AM, eric wrote:

> No go Thomas I have not unsubscribed from the GA-full.

> If I were then I would not be allowed to post there, and as William has
> shown I am being allowed to post there.

Wrong. Any email sent to ga-full goes through, even if you are not
subscribed.

Thomas told you exactly what happened, any fault is solely with you.

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

- --
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, 26 Mar 2002 06:35:59 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA summary 2002-11

Tuesday, Tuesday, March 26, 2002, 6:31:48 AM, eric wrote:

> William I just got all three of yours.

> But I bet no one got two of mine!

> either i am subscribed to the ga-full or not.  if not then my posts
> should not be listed.

Wrong.  You're assumptions are wrong.

Anyone can post to ga-full, member or not.

You were told what the problem is, and the fault is entirely your own.

You are the one who started playing games with the addresses you sent
mail from, and which addresses were subscribed.  The only fault is
yours.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.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: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 06:55:20 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA summary 2002-11

Tuesday, Tuesday, March 26, 2002, 6:55:58 AM, eric wrote:

> Sorry you are wrong!

> As Roessler just pointed out, anyone can post and be a member on the list
> but one must subscribe!

> Read it and weep.

Wrong, that is not what he said.

ANYONE, subscribed or not, can send to the GA-Full list and it will go
out.

That is what Thomas just told you.  Now abide by your promise.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.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: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 10:48:31 -0500
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The Ultimate.

Lads and Lasses of the Popularly Democratic Element in 
this here General Assembly,

While doing a bit of pasttime reading on yesterday (a 
holiday for me as the 25th of March marks the anniversary 
of Greek Independence), I ran across something which I 
found strikingly appropriate to our own circumstances here 
in the GA, and in ICANN generally:

"Decision-making on major issues is now vested in 
international institutions which are so remote from public 
influence, that the public has no idea what's going on. I 
mean, in the case of NAFTA (North American Free Trade 
Agreement), incidentally the Labor Advisory Committee 
report was never reported in the press, right, I'd be 
surprised if any of you know about it, here's a case where 
the government radically violated the law, demonstrated 
utter contempt for the democratic process, rammed through 
a secret executive agreement of enormous influence, 
wouldn't even let the one popular group that is supposed 
to see it by law, the labor- based group, even look at it, 
they write the report, and then the press censors it. All 
right, here we have the ultimate in the destruction of 
democracy, the ideal that everybody's been dreaming of. 
Not only is the rabble excluded, they don't influence 
policy, but they don't know what's in policy, and finally 
they don't know that they don't know. Virtually nobody 
knows that they don't know what is going on. Well, you 
know, now we've reached the ultimate. That's the ultimate 
possibility in the destruction of democracy."
	-Noam Chomsky, "Old Wine, New Bottles: Free Trade, Global 
Markets and Military Adventures"

The complete article in its thoroughly engrossing entirety 
can be found at: 
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/talks/9302-uva.html

*************

Yours Very Truly,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	A Proud Greek-Canadian

- --
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, 26 Mar 2002 10:55:04 -0500
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "Domain Registry of Canada"

Over the past few months, a company calling itself the "Domain Registry of Canada" has undertaken a campaign to target Domain registrants to renew their domain names.

These emails and letters are addressed to registrants, thanking you for either registering, or renewing your domain name (they have obtained your contact information from the publicly accessible WHOIS database).

The letters will invite you (in a language that suggests a prior business relationship exists) to either renew or approve a change to your domain name. The end result is your domain name being transferred to this new entity.

If you are the recipient of any of this propaganda, we strongly urge you to report it to your local Chamber of Commerce and Better Business Bureau. In addition, please report any and all unsolicited attempts to your registrar.

************
I have received several of these "Domain Registry of Canada" notices myself.

Anyone want to bet on whois behind this fraudulent scheme?!

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Toronto, Canada
**
"Decision-making on major issues is now vested in international institutions which are so remote from public influence, that the public has no idea what's going on. I mean, in the case of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), incidentally the Labor Advisory Committee report was never reported in the press, right, I'd be surprised if any of you know about it, here's a case where the government radically violated the law, demonstrated utter contempt for the democratic process, rammed through a secret executive agreement of enormous influence, wouldn't even let the one popular group that is supposed to see it by law, the labor- based group, even look at it, they write the report, and then the press censors it. All right, here we have the ultimate in the destruction of democracy, the ideal that everybody's been dreaming of. Not only is the rabble excluded, they don't influence policy, but they don't know what's in policy, and finally they don't know that they don't know. Virtually nobody knows that they don't know what is going on. Well, you know, now we've reached the ultimate. That's the ultimate possibility in the destruction of democracy."

- -Noam Chomsky, "Old Wine, New Bottles: Free Trade, Global Markets and Military Adventures"
the above article in its thoroughly engrossing entirety can be found at: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/talks/9302-uva.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, 26 Mar 2002 16:42:48 -0000
From: Jon Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] "Domain Registry of Canada"

There has been a similar blight of unsolicited renewal notices being sent 
out to registrants within the .com.au domain space in Australia that has 
been going on for some 12 months at least despite access to expiry dates 
being removed from the public whois database.

One of the companies involved in this practice have also been suspended by 
the .nz administrator for similar behaviour - see: 
http://www2.domainz.net.nz/newsstand/news.html

A similar but even more curious practice was recently shut down as a result 
of court action by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission - 
see: http://203.6.251.7/accc.internet/digest/view_media.cfm?RecordID=616

jon lawrence
london

- -----Original Message-----
From:	Sotiris Sotiropoulos [SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Tuesday, March 26, 2002 3:55 PM
To:	GA
Subject:	[ga] "Domain Registry of Canada"

Over the past few months, a company calling itself the "Domain Registry of 
Canada" has undertaken a campaign to target Domain registrants to renew 
their domain names.

These emails and letters are addressed to registrants, thanking you for 
either registering, or renewing your domain name (they have obtained your 
contact information from the publicly accessible WHOIS database).

The letters will invite you (in a language that suggests a prior business 
relationship exists) to either renew or approve a change to your domain 
name. The end result is your domain name being transferred to this new 
entity.

If you are the recipient of any of this propaganda, we strongly urge you to 
report it to your local Chamber of Commerce and Better Business Bureau. In 
addition, please report any and all unsolicited attempts to your registrar.

************
I have received several of these "Domain Registry of Canada" notices 
myself.

Anyone want to bet on whois behind this fraudulent scheme?!

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Toronto, Canada
**
"Decision-making on major issues is now vested in international institut  
ions which are so remote from public influence, that the public has no idea 
what's going on. I mean, in the case of NAFTA (North American Free Trade 
Agreement), incidentally the Labor Advisory Committee report was never 
reported in the press, right, I'd be surprised if any of you know about it, 
here's a case where the government radically violated the law, demonstrated 
utter contempt for the democratic process, rammed through a secret 
executive agreement of enormous influence, wouldn't even let the one 
popular group that is supposed to see it by law, the labor- based group, 
even look at it, they write the report, and then the press censors it. All 
right, here we have the ultimate in the destruction of democracy, the ideal 
that everybody's been dreaming of. Not only is the rabble excluded, they 
don't influence policy, but they don't know what's in policy, and finally 
they don't know that they don't know. !
Vi!
rtually nobody knows that they don't know what is going on. Well, you know, 
now we've reached the ultimate. That's the ultimate possibility in the 
destruction of democracy."

- -Noam Chomsky, "Old Wine, New Bottles: Free Trade, Global Markets and 
Military Adventures"
the above article in its thoroughly engrossing entirety can be found at: 
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/talks/9302-uva.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, 26 Mar 2002 10:57:11 -0600
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  ICANN Funding

A 40% increase?  Really?

Monday, March 25, 2002, 2:34:53 PM, [email-masked] <[email-masked]> wrote:
Dcc> Elana Broitman has published the following comment on the ICANN budget to the 
Dcc> registrar's list:  
Dcc> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02236.html

Dcc> As a representative of the Registrar Constituency on Stuart Lynn's Budget
Dcc> Advisory group, I am updating you on the discussions of the group at the
Dcc> Accra meeting.  Stuart will soon be sending his final budget proposal, so I
Dcc> will not preempt him by sending out his draft. 

Dcc> However, I believe it is appropriate to share with you the general direction
Dcc> that he'll be taking.

Dcc> As you may recall, the 2001-02 budget had been $5,030,000.  The revenues
Dcc> were estimated at $5,78mm, which would have left a small carry over reserve.
Dcc> The actual projected budget for last year is coming in around those numbers,
Dcc> with a slightly smaller reserves for carry over.

Dcc> Stuart suggests raising the budget by roughly $2mm, much of this going to
Dcc> cover administrative and personnel expenses.  This would not account for
Dcc> budgetary changes associated with ICANN reform or potentially no at large
Dcc> elections.  What this would mean for registrars is a roughly 30% raise in
Dcc> ICANN fees.  

Dcc> We all recognize the great burden on ICANN's staff and resources and know
Dcc> that increased support would help them get things done, including for
Dcc> registrars.  At the same time, various constituencies and stake holders are
Dcc> raising questions about the breadth and scope of ICANN's mission, which if
Dcc> kept to a focus, may alleviate some of the budgetary pressures.

Dcc> As we receive Stuart's proposed budget, it is incumbent on our constituency,
Dcc> as one of the largest ICANN funders, to provide thoughtful comments to
Dcc> Stuart.  Bryan, Rob and I look forward to briefing you as we get further
Dcc> details and making sure that the constituency's comments get to Stuart.

Dcc> Regards, Elana

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

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
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, 26 Mar 2002 11:59:26 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Request for a Working Group

Having reviewed the many ICANN Public Forums, the registrars list, and the GA 
list, one fact is eminently clear:  the public has been loudly complaining 
about abusive and deceptive registrar and re-seller business practices.  It 
is apparent to me that there are a sufficient number of rogues in this 
industry that need to be brought under control.  It is time to review the 
enforcement provisions within current ICANN contracts, to review how 
enforcement is currently being handled, and to hold registrars accountable 
for the actions of their resellers.

I would ask the Chair of this Assembly to convene a working group devoted to 
this topic.
- --
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, 26 Mar 2002 12:11:09 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for a Working Group

[cc's chopped ruthlessly]

Personally, I believe that deceptive trade practices should be regulated
by the national authorities where a business is located and where it
trades, not by ICANN.

On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> Having reviewed the many ICANN Public Forums, the registrars list, and the GA 
> list, one fact is eminently clear:  the public has been loudly complaining 
> about abusive and deceptive registrar and re-seller business practices.  It 
> is apparent to me that there are a sufficient number of rogues in this 
> industry that need to be brought under control.  It is time to review the 
> enforcement provisions within current ICANN contracts, to review how 
> enforcement is currently being handled, and to hold registrars accountable 
> for the actions of their resellers.
> 
> I would ask the Chair of this Assembly to convene a working group devoted to 
> this topic.
> --
> 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
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--

- --
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, 26 Mar 2002 09:16:44 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for a Working Group

I concur.

Tuesday, Tuesday, March 26, 2002, 9:11:09 AM, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

> [cc's chopped ruthlessly]

> Personally, I believe that deceptive trade practices should be regulated
> by the national authorities where a business is located and where it
> trades, not by ICANN.

> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

>> Having reviewed the many ICANN Public Forums, the registrars list, and the GA 
>> list, one fact is eminently clear:  the public has been loudly complaining 
>> about abusive and deceptive registrar and re-seller business practices.  It 
>> is apparent to me that there are a sufficient number of rogues in this 
>> industry that need to be brought under control.  It is time to review the 
>> enforcement provisions within current ICANN contracts, to review how 
>> enforcement is currently being handled, and to hold registrars accountable 
>> for the actions of their resellers.
>> 
>> I would ask the Chair of this Assembly to convene a working group devoted to 
>> this topic.
>> --
>> 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
>> 
>> 

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.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: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:43:06 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA summary 2002-11

Hello,
- --- Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On 2002-03-25 18:29:32 -0800, eric wrote:
> 
> >(sorry for the funny posting but as you all should Know by now I 
> >have been banned without process)
> 
> This is not true.
> 
> >Off course this is absurd and does not reflect what happened this 
> >last time period.
> 
> Please provide a summary of what _you_ consider important.

Personally, I thought the summary was good. The only item I'd have
added was a brief mention of the thread where Verisign has submitted
WLS to ICANN (despite oppostion by the RC, and no consensus), as that
hadn't been officially mentioned anywhere else but on this list (i.e.
except for the quiet release on Verisign's website), and so might be
propagated further by inclusion on the summary.

Although, Verisign's actions in this matter were predicted ex ante, so
perhaps it's not really news, when everyone knew it was going to
happen.

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®
http://movies.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: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:45:56 -0800
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for a Working Group

- --------------60253A86412B881C04A1AD31
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:

> [cc's chopped ruthlessly]
>
> Personally, I believe that deceptive trade practices should be regulated
> by the national authorities where a business is located and where it
> trades, not by ICANN.

Exactly right. This kowtowing to ICANN should stop, and a barrage
of complaints should be generated and sent to the Federal Trade
Commission as to Federal law, and to the Comsumer Complaint
Departments of the various states in which all of us live, which will
likely (as in Oregon) be a part of the state Dept. of Justice, i.e.,
the Attorney General.  Those in other countries than the U. S. will
have rough equivalents to the above, and should be able to identify
who to write to in their own countries, i.e., whoever handles deceptive
and unfair trade practices.

I'm not in the registry, registrar, domain name buying or selling business,
so I'm not sure I know enough about the process and its corruption to
write a good letter myself, nor am I sure I have enough standing to write
one, since I can't see where I've been hurt at all.  But that is not true as to
many of the rest of you, so I say, have at it!  (Where I have been damaged,
I have written to the Oregon Dept. of Justice, using a complaint form that
can be downloaded from the net, and in every case whoever I was then
after was quickly brought to heel.)

And no working group is needed -- just get a "multi-log" going among
all you damaged folks to settle on the specific complaint language as to
specific sins (the recent "Warning to Consumers" or whatever it was
called seems to be a good example), adapted of course to fit each
person's situation, and then start sending off the letters. (That also gets
rid of some more ICANN formality.)

Bill Lovell

>
>
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > Having reviewed the many ICANN Public Forums, the registrars list, and the GA
> > list, one fact is eminently clear:  the public has been loudly complaining
> > about abusive and deceptive registrar and re-seller business practices.  It
> > is apparent to me that there are a sufficient number of rogues in this
> > industry that need to be brought under control.  It is time to review the
> > enforcement provisions within current ICANN contracts, to review how
> > enforcement is currently being handled, and to hold registrars accountable
> > for the actions of their resellers.
> >
> > I would ask the Chair of this Assembly to convene a working group devoted to
> > this topic.
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> --
>                 Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                         -->It's warm here.<--
>
> --
> 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

- --------------60253A86412B881C04A1AD31
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
&nbsp;
<p>"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>[cc's chopped ruthlessly]
<p>Personally, I believe that deceptive trade practices should be regulated
<br>by the national authorities where a business is located and where it
<br>trades, not by ICANN.</blockquote>
Exactly right. This kowtowing to ICANN should stop, and a barrage
<br>of complaints should be generated and sent to the Federal Trade
<br>Commission as to Federal law, and to the Comsumer Complaint
<br>Departments of the various states in which all of us live, which will
<br>likely (as in Oregon) be a part of the state Dept. of Justice, i.e.,
<br>the Attorney General.&nbsp; Those in other countries than the U. S.
will
<br>have rough equivalents to the above, and should be able to identify
<br>who to write to in their own countries, i.e., whoever handles deceptive
<br>and unfair trade practices.
<p>I'm not in the registry, registrar, domain name buying or selling business,
<br>so I'm not sure I know enough about the process and its corruption
to
<br>write a good letter myself, nor am I sure I have enough standing to
write
<br>one, since I can't see where I've been hurt at all.&nbsp; But that
is not true as to
<br>many of the rest of you, so I say, have at it!&nbsp; (Where I <i>hav</i>e
been damaged,
<br>I have written to the Oregon Dept. of Justice, using a complaint form
that
<br>can be downloaded from the net, and in every case whoever I was then
<br>after was quickly brought to heel.)
<p>And no working group is needed -- just get a "multi-log" going among
<br>all you damaged folks to settle on the specific complaint language
as to
<br>specific sins (the recent "Warning to Consumers" or whatever it was
<br>called seems to be a good example), adapted of course to fit each
<br>person's situation, and then start sending off the letters. (That also
gets
<br>rid of some more ICANN formality.)
<p>Bill Lovell
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<p>On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
<p>> Having reviewed the many ICANN Public Forums, the registrars list,
and the GA
<br>> list, one fact is eminently clear:&nbsp; the public has been loudly
complaining
<br>> about abusive and deceptive registrar and re-seller business practices.&nbsp;
It
<br>> is apparent to me that there are a sufficient number of rogues in
this
<br>> industry that need to be brought under control.&nbsp; It is time
to review the
<br>> enforcement provisions within current ICANN contracts, to review
how
<br>> enforcement is currently being handled, and to hold registrars accountable
<br>> for the actions of their resellers.
<br>>
<br>> I would ask the Chair of this Assembly to convene a working group
devoted to
<br>> this topic.
<br>> --
<br>> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<br>> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<br>> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
<br>> Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a>
<br>>
<br>>
<p>--
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Please visit <a href="http://www.icannwatch.org">http://www.icannwatch.org</a>
<br>A. Michael Froomkin&nbsp;&nbsp; |&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Professor of Law&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
|&nbsp;&nbsp; [email-masked]
<br>U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
<br>+1 (305) 284-4285&nbsp; |&nbsp; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)&nbsp; |&nbsp;
<a href="http://www.law.tm">http://www.law.tm</a>
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
- -->It's warm here.&lt;--
<p>--
<br>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<br>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<br>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
<br>Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a></blockquote>
</html>

- --------------60253A86412B881C04A1AD31--

- --
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, 26 Mar 2002 12:46:19 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  Request for a Working Group

Michael,

Whether you like it or not, we currently regulate the registrar community by 
way of contracts (such as the Registrar Accreditation Agreement).  These 
contracts specify registrar obligations, and how they are to attend to 
"Business Dealings, Including with Registered Name Holders" (section 3.7).  
This puts the issue of registrar practices squarely within ICANN's purview, 
and creating modifications to this contract language indeed falls within the 
ICANN consensus process.  

Clearly we have a right to establish provisions to curtail nefarious business 
practices in order to "enhance user choice and satisfaction".  

- --
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, 26 Mar 2002 11:28:18 -0800
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for a Working Group

I agree with Michael. In addition to the local and national authorities that
provide consumer protection, virtually every state in the U.S. provides
aggrieved parties a private right of action for unfair and deceptive trade
practices. If the Verisign registrar campaign is deceptive (and I don't make
any claim about that), then every affected registrar and registrant, both
individually or as a class, likely has a private remedy available to stop
the practice. 

        -- Bret 

Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> [cc's chopped ruthlessly]
> 
> Personally, I believe that deceptive trade practices should be regulated
> by the national authorities where a business is located and where it
> trades, not by ICANN.
> 
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
> 
>> Having reviewed the many ICANN Public Forums, the registrars list, and the GA
>> list, one fact is eminently clear:  the public has been loudly complaining
>> about abusive and deceptive registrar and re-seller business practices.  It
>> is apparent to me that there are a sufficient number of rogues in this
>> industry that need to be brought under control.  It is time to review the
>> enforcement provisions within current ICANN contracts, to review how
>> enforcement is currently being handled, and to hold registrars accountable
>> for the actions of their resellers.
>> 
>> I would ask the Chair of this Assembly to convene a working group devoted to
>> this topic.
>> --
>> 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: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 14:40:26 -0500
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Request for a Working Group

I have never understood the point of having a contract that is
unenforceable. Do we know whether these solicitations went across the US
Borders or not? It seems unreasonable to tell Registrants on the other side
of the world to file complaint through the US Postal Service, although I do
not disagree with Brett and Michael.

Joanna

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Bret
Fausett
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 2:28 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for a Working Group

I agree with Michael. In addition to the local and national authorities that
provide consumer protection, virtually every state in the U.S. provides
aggrieved parties a private right of action for unfair and deceptive trade
practices. If the Verisign registrar campaign is deceptive (and I don't make
any claim about that), then every affected registrar and registrant, both
individually or as a class, likely has a private remedy available to stop
the practice.

        -- Bret

Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> [cc's chopped ruthlessly]
>
> Personally, I believe that deceptive trade practices should be regulated
> by the national authorities where a business is located and where it
> trades, not by ICANN.
>
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
>
>> Having reviewed the many ICANN Public Forums, the registrars list, and
the GA
>> list, one fact is eminently clear:  the public has been loudly
complaining
>> about abusive and deceptive registrar and re-seller business practices.
It
>> is apparent to me that there are a sufficient number of rogues in this
>> industry that need to be brought under control.  It is time to review the
>> enforcement provisions within current ICANN contracts, to review how
>> enforcement is currently being handled, and to hold registrars
accountable
>> for the actions of their resellers.
>>
>> I would ask the Chair of this Assembly to convene a working group devoted
to
>> this topic.
>> --
>> 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" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 14:53:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Request for a Working Group

Danny --

	ICANN has by now signed a variety of contracts, drafted without
community input or consensus support, under which it has come to regulate
a bunch of different aspects of registry and registrar conduct.  Many of
us think that ICANN is using these contracts to control matters that are
*not* "squarely within its purview."  We can argue about whether any
particular piece of regulation is within ICANN's mission, properly
understood, but that argument has to turn on the nature of the regulation
in question.  The mere fact that regulation has been incorporated in a
contract doesn't answer the question whether it is within ICANN's mission
- -- and the ideal of consensus shouldn't bar people from questioning
contract provisions that didn't result from consensus processes.  (I'll
grant you that the process leading to the registrar contract looks a lot
better, from a consensus standpoint, when you compare it to the egregious
registry contract negotiation process . . . )

Jon

Jonathan Weinberg
[email-masked]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> Michael,
> 
> Whether you like it or not, we currently regulate the registrar community by 
> way of contracts (such as the Registrar Accreditation Agreement).  These 
> contracts specify registrar obligations, and how they are to attend to 
> "Business Dealings, Including with Registered Name Holders" (section 3.7).  
> This puts the issue of registrar practices squarely within ICANN's purview, 
> and creating modifications to this contract language indeed falls within the 
> ICANN consensus process.  
> 
> Clearly we have a right to establish provisions to curtail nefarious business 
> practices in order to "enhance user choice and satisfaction".  
> 
> --
> 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
> 

Jonathan Weinberg
[email-masked]

- --
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 #1104
*************************