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

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Hi Bill,

I think we have basically agreed to take this off line. Except for your little
dig here on misleading statements which I could take great exception to but
will not, I thank you for your interest in our project and would invite you if
you chose to be involved in our further discussions.

I made this on the list so that anyone else interested can follow-up with me if
they chose.  I will make one more post on this subject to give you all a link
to our engine. The reason I will do this is it will have a forum where the true
identity of the poster on issues of the UDRP and Warehousing will be discussed
in anonymity.  I imagine it will be open to abuse but it is a social experiment
which may show positive results. It will emphasize privacy over accountability
- let us see.  The chat room will also at times become a board room.  There we
will preset times and with strict control conduct meetings showing how Roberts
Rules of Order can work on the net, that is how we will proceed with developing
a voluntary "UDRP".

Bye,
Eric

"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.
>
> > 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