RE: [ga] Some issues raised by today's FTC action

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

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: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] 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" <marc@fuchsia.bijt.net>
To: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
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], DannyYounger@cs.com 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 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