RE: [ga] Use of ccTLDs as generics?

["David Hernand" <david@new.net>]

Dear Vany:

Having reviewed the various posts to this discussion string, please be aware
that we at New.net are very willing to participate in discussions regarding
consumer protection issues relating to the sale and use of non-ICANN
sanctioned domain names.  The questions you've raised in your original
August 15 posting to the NC are excellent ones, and we'd be more than happy
to address them directly at any time.   I can assure you that New.net has
always been very open and transparent in dealings with our customers.  With
all due respect to Mr. Shepperd, we doubt that he was concerned about being
polite to an ICANN sponsor when he suggested postponing discussion of these
issues to a conference call instead of the more public forum of the
Montevideo meeting.  (Mr. Shepperd certainly has not demonstrated such
concerns for New.net during past Business Constituency meetings, when he and
other Business Constituency leaders have made every attempt possible to
present a single jaundiced view of alternative naming systems and stifle
meaningful debate of the issues you raise.)

New.net would be pleased to contribute to a meaningful discussion of these
issues irrespective of our financial support for ICANN meetings.  As always,
we expect that many within ICANN circles will continue to disagree with our
approach to expanding the name space, and some may find inadequate the steps
we take to ensure that consumers are well-informed about our products and
services.  Nevertheless, we think continued debate on these issues would be
helpful.  Toward this end, New.net is willing to make a formal presentation
to the Names Council at its next public meeting in Marina Del Rey to address
the issues you raise in your email.  (Such presentation also could include a
discussion of security issues if necessary to fit within what appears to be
ICANN's new agenda.)  Short of a formal presentation, we would be pleased to
provide whatever additional information you or other members of the Names
Council would like.

Best regards,

David Hernand
CEO
New.net





-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Nilda
Vany Martinez Grajales
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2001 8:07 AM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Use of ccTLDs as generics?


Dear Dany:

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
>
> Dear Vany,
>
> You had indicated that you will be speaking on "Use of ccTLDs as generics"
> (item #10) in the upcoming Names Council teleconference, but it now
appears
> that you have changed the focus of your speech and wish to devote ten
minutes
> to attacking New.net.  Why?

It happened that before Montevideo, I raised a concern about issue of
TLDs that ICANN has never created
are offered as legimit TLDs.  Please, read the e-mail I sent to the NC
then:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00783.html

Then before NC meeting in Montevideo still I insisted to Philip in talk
about the issue addressed in the link above, but he said that it was
better to speak about this subject in the next teleconference, because
New.net it wasn't polite to do since they were sponsors of such ICANN
meeting.

During the NC meeting in Montevideo, the people of .BIZ raised a concern
about .BIZ and the marketing of .BZ as the same concept (business)...As
you may see, Dany, this is not a concern I raised neither I requested to
talk about.

And then, Philip launched the NC teleconference Agenda with the issue of
Marketing ccTLDs as generic, when I pointed him out several times that
this is a subject that should be addressed by .BIZ and not by me.

So, this is all the confusion about the item #8 of the Agenda.

I am not talking against New.net in specific, but it is an example of
several companies that are doing the same as New.net, because New.net is
not the only one that is offering TLDs.  Imagine that they are also
offering them in different language...And, as they said in
Montevideo...if ICANN designates another Registry for such TLDs, the
customer loose the domains.

But, this is only part of the issues that I raised concerns in the
e-mail sent to the NC which is URL is above.

Cheers
Vany
:-)








>
> Vany wrote:  "Also I want to clarify the following point:
>
> > 10. Use of ccTLDs as generics - Vany
> "The issue that I wanted to deal about was about companies that are
offering
> domains under TLDs not created by ICANN, using a technolgy that allows
them
> to masquerade existing domains to resolve domains under such TLDs.  I
think
> that the NC should say a word in this issue because all DNS sectors
> represented in DNSO are affected.  And if even this is not under the power
of
> ICANN to stop it, well, then at least that make that ICANN publicly make
an
> statement about it with recommendations to the pertaining bodies that can
> deal about such activity better.  To be sincere, personally, I think is a
> fraud simply because the day that ICANN decides to grant the registry of a
> new TLD to a company different from the one that has being offering such
> TLD...the ones who registered domains names under such TLD simply loose
the
> domain and probably the money.  I think this is a subject very different
from
> use ccTLDs as generics, or lets say, better: marketing ccTLDs as generics.
> This was the concern of the .BIZ Registry in Montevideo."
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-intake/Arc00/msg00311.html
>
> "The concern I am pointing out and that was the one I told you in
Montevideo
> and in an e-mail I wrote months before Montevideo is totally different:
It
> is about companies marketings TLDs as .TRAVEL,
> .LOVE, .GAME, .VIAJES, .AMOR, .KIDS, etc, etc, etc....and technically
> resolving such TLDs by
> masquerading with existent TLDs.  And as you may realized, none of such
TLDs
> has being created,
> recognized neither asigned by ICANN!!!.  I hope this clarifies better than
> before."  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-intake/Arc00/msg00313.html
> --
> 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
--
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


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