<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: ADNS - Re: FTC - Re: New.net - Re: [ga] Sen. Burns to the Chair of the Commerce Committee
Derek and all assembly members,
Derek, why don't you ask the horses mouth? Steven Wernikoff
<swernikoff@ftc.gov>
would be a goo place to start.
As for .USA appearing to be a threat to Newstars .US, that may or
may not be true. In any event I have no problem getting .USA
domain Names to resolve. Healthy competition is one of the
precepts of the DOC/NTIA's White Paper. As such ADNS's,
.USA , New.Net's inclusive/competitive Registry/Root structure
or any other is a healthy thing.
Derek Conant wrote:
> FTC proceedings are Administrative proceedings in front of an
> Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). FTC proceedings are not the kind of
> 'court proceedings' you are apparently describing.
>
> ADNS appears to promote a .usa TLD which some may believe threatens the
> (legitimate) .us TLD and/or may create consumer confusion. This could
> be a significant issue.
>
> I believe that your average consumer does not know what ICANN is or what
> the legacy root system is, and probably could care less about what they
> are or will be in the future. I believe that the average consumer
> believes that a domain name works on the Internet. The FTC's apparent
> position is that which what the average consumer believes the Internet
> is, is what the Internet is.
>
> This is not about about educating consumers as to what the Internet is
> or what WWW is. FTC participation and action here appears to be about
> establishing the standard of what the Internet and WWW is.
>
> With regard to your comment about New.Net going to jail, I never made
> any such comment.
>
> All comments I have made in this public forum concerning the subject
> matter are only of my own opinion and are not intended to be bias,
> inflammatory and/or otherwise.
>
> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman
>
> John Palmer wrote:
> >
> > 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
> --
> 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
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes 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: 972-244-3801 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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|