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

["John Palmer" <jp@ADNS.NET>]

What a load of garbage!

First of all, the FTC action was based on the fact that they didn't feel
that
TLDNetworks gave proper disclaimers as to visibility of their domains. It
has nothing to do with domain name similar to any other domains.

As long as New.Net gives legally sufficient information about the visibility
of their domains, they are protected. Its all about properly informing
consumers
about the situation so that they can make a valid choice as to wether or not
to spend their money.

FTC could not shut down an inclusive namespace provider as long as they
gave adequate disclaimers. A domain registry is nothing more than a
publisher of a directory of names that they (the registry) wishes to
publish.

Publishers are  protected by The First Amendment of the United States
Constitution
The government is prohibited from violating the 1st Amendment.

I am in support of proper disclosure to consumers and support FTC
action against those that do not follow the rules. It has yet to be
determined if TLD networks did indeed break the rules or did not.

What I am suspicious of is whether or not there is some alterior motive
behind this.  The motive would be an attempt by ICANN and its minions
to close down any and all competition. I would be very interested in
knowing (but will probably never know) what machinations went on
behind the scenes. ICANN is a corrupt monopoly that can't stand
competition and will (based on past behavior) go to extreme lengths
to squash out the competition.

In our press release yesterday, I indicated that I was "pleased" with
the FTC action. After all, TLD Networks "swiped" the TLD that
we have been operating since 1995. Now, I can honestly say
that I am having second thoughts about being "pleased". It all
hinges on whether or not the FTC is fairly applying the law in this
case. They may be. Only the court proceedings will tell.

I am heartened by the fact that an FTC spokesperson was quoted
in one of the online news pieces yesterday as saying that they dont
intend on going after inclusive namespace providers that give proper
disclaimers about the limited visibility of their domains. I hope that
was a sincere statement and not a cover.

Your obvious bias and inflammatory statements about "New.Net going
to jail" are inappropriate in my opinion.

ADNS is not going anywhere and I hope that New.Net will stay the
course as well.

John Palmer

----- Original Message -----
From: "Derek Conant" <dconant@dnsga.org>
To: <david@new.net>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>; <ga@dnsga.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 12:33 PM
Subject: FTC - Re: New.net - Re: [ga] Sen. Burns to the Chair of the
Commerce Committee


> 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
>
>

--
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