FTC - Re: New.net - Re: [ga] Sen. Burns to the Chair of the Commerce Committee

[Derek Conant <dconant@dnsga.org>]

The DNSGA website is being worked on.

In a DNSGA position paper filed with DoC on 11 May 2001, the DNSGA
pointed out as follows:

"The DNSGA recommends that the DoC consider the significant consumer
protection issues, and U.S. Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") advertising
practice jurisdiction, concerning alternative top-level domain
("altTLD") organizations that appear to be confusing consumers by
offering domain names that appear similar to, however, are not the same
nor compatible with the legacy root system."

With the FTC charging representatives of the alternative root system, my
understanding is that New.net is not an accredited registrar and opinion
is that New.net domain names are bogus.  My understanding is that
opinion is that New.net domain names are not usable on the Internet, and
that they probably never will be useable.  My understanding through
New.net representations is that many consumers have purchased New.net
domain names.

It seems that a defense to FTC charges regarding bogus domain names, or
a defense to FTC charges against the alternative root system, is that
the FTC appears selective in its attacks against the alternative root
system representatives, by not charging New.net with similar charges.  

Maybe the FTC just hasn't charged you guys yet?  If defendants have
adequate counsel, with my experience with the FTC, its advertising
practices group and amended section five, New.net will probably also be
charged by the FTC.  

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman


David Hernand wrote:
> 
> Yes, why do you ask?  Also, on a related note, why is your website no longer
> accessible?
> 
> DMH
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Derek Conant [mailto:dconant@dnsga.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 9:44 AM
> To: david@new.net
> Cc: ga@dnso.org; ga@dnsga.org
> Subject: New.net - Re: [ga] Sen. Burns to the Chair of the Commerce
> Committee
> 
> Hey Dave, ...you guys still in business?
> 
> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman
> 
> David Hernand wrote:
> >
> > As many of you know, New.net recently issued a policy paper regarding the
> > need to reform DNS governance that posits that the U.S. will maintain
> > control over the legacy DNS root.  One of the themes in our paper is that
> we
> > all must be brutally honest in assessing the current political and
> economic
> > landscape when devising solutions to the current broken structure.  Based
> on
> > conversations that I and others from New.net have had with members of
> > Congress and DOC officials, we think that it is extremely unlikely that
> the
> > U.S. Government will give up control over the root in the foreseeable
> > future.  Senator Burns' letter provides further evidence of that point.
> If
> > true, then ICANN will never be able to achieve its mission, either in its
> > current form or in the form envisioned by Stuart Lynn.  In light of the
> > reality of continued U.S. control, we have proposed solutions that
> > contemplate ongoing control, but afford greater recognition of the
> interests
> > of ccTLD operators and greater reliance on market forces instead of
> ICANN's
> > notion of privatized worldwide government.  (For those that are
> interested,
> > our paper is available at http://www.new.net/WhitePaper_v2.pdf  (PDF
> > version)  http://www.new.net/WhitePaper_v2.html (HTML version)).
> >
> > David Hernand
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Sotiris
> > Sotiropoulos
> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 9:15 PM
> > To: George Kirikos
> > Cc: ga@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Sen. Burns to the Chair of the Commerce Committee
> >
> > George Kirikos wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > --- Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com> wrote:
> > > > The US never really had any intention of handing control
> > > > over the root to anyone, least of all an
> > > > pseudo-international body a.k.a. ICANN.
> > >
> > > Personally, I have no problems with US control over the root. Having it
> > > in the hands of a stable democracy with a mature legal system seems
> > > preferable to that of a quasi-UN board, with unknown intentions and
> > > difficult enforcement mechanisms. I prefer the devil I know, I suppose.
> > > :) [I'm Canadian, by the way, so supporting the Americans isn't a
> > > nationalistic thing for me]
> >
> > I'm Canadian as well!  Perhaps Canada should run the root?
> >
> > >
> > > What's important, though, is to not let the beast get out of control.
> > > It's mandate should be limited to the technical issues, without policy
> > > creep into areas beyond its scope.
> >
> > Fat chance of that!
> >
> > --
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> >         Hermes Network Inc.
> >         Toronto, Canada
> >
> > ----
> > direct: 416.422.1034
> >
> > icq: 34564103
> > --
> > 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@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