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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

WXW, all interested parties and assembly members,

William X. Walsh wrote:

> 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.

  I have not seen or heard of any misrepresentitive statements regarding
.VN coming from Eric.  If you are aware of any WXW. why not
share them with everyone here if you can substantiate them.  If not,
than you accusation here in a public forum is tantamount to defamation,
and commonly referred to as FUD in Internet parlance.  I for one would
appreciate you discontinuing such abusive comments.  I am quite sure
Eric, Lee, Thomas, Sheldon and other GA participants would as well...

  In that vain, I would like to thank you for your cooperation in
advance....

>
>
> > 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.

  It is my understanding that a dispute policy will be provided when the
public announcement is released and the registration page is available
in the very near future.  Not before...  I believe this is a wise policy...

>
>
> 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.

  Yes and some privacy will be default as and Opt-in as I understand it...

>
>
> --
> 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
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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