DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] Re: Privacy/WHOIS

I certainly hope you are right about RICO.  My point was that the continued intentional
violation of rules and regulations in a money oriented business, regardless of non-profit
status, i.e. churches, starts to become identifiable as a pattern when it happens so often
that it cannot be accidental or negligent.
    When we add up that the boardsquatters and lack of membership, and refusal to disclose
ownership of the corporation and obviously paid for disruption of the process (internet
Union busters).  Then add the monopolistic status of both the contractor and the main
subcontractor we begin to see a pattern of racketeering and or corruption the, element of
influence is already there and it is clearly an organization. We have to keep in mind RICO
is not a dirty word it is simply intitials for the essential elements of stating the case.
Note also that RICO can now be a civil action in Federal Court. When filed civily it usually
includes a Qui Tam action.  California does not have a state cause of action for civil rico.

    My point on this latest subject coming so close behind how the Verisign matter was
handled and not far after the new gTLD announcement and clear violation of privacy laws and
the DoC's requirements for confidentiality. WE see a pattern developing.  There is also a
provision in the contract that prohibits the changing of policy regarding re-delegation,
perhaps this problem can be cured with DoC Approval.
    Keep in mind I do not practice law, but for lawyers I have drafted three filed RICO
complaints and have committed probably over a year's time investigating them. All this
amounts to is a historical research opinion.
    I guess what we really have to ask ourselves is why doesn't ICANN just do it right? The
only explanation I can come up with is that they don't want to do it right.


Jeff Williams wrote:

> Eric and all remaining assembly  members,
> Eric Dierker wrote:
> > Jeff Williams wrote:
> >
> > > > The Names Council WHOIS Committee is not due to start it's work of soliciting
> > > > comments on the WHOIS issue until the ICANN Staff WHOIS Committee publishes its
> > > > report, which is due out in about two weeks.
> > >
> > >   This seems terribly backwards.  Any report should include input from
> > > the stakeholder community BEFORE the WHOIS Committee even convenes.
> > > So much for open process again...  :(
> >
> > If you think about it, it is really down right funny.  However I do not believe that a
> > subcommitte looking for transparency and bottom-up process is going to be laughing.
>   Not subcommittee, but full committee...  Otherwise, yes I agree...
> >
> > In that the current WHOISdata base policy is in direct violation of the DoC contract
> > for IANA function, and the proposed Verisisign contract in larger violation of
> > Subcontractor status via the APA it is starting to look like a design and practice of
> > violations - ccan anyone spell RICO. IMnlHO
>   Well I don't know if RICO would apply here.  Certainly though APA does,
> and purposeful and before hand knowledge of a violation of contract with
> DOC/NTIA, as is now evident in this instance would tend to be something
> that DOC should look at very closely...  Our members certainly hope
> they (DOC) will...
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> Regards,
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members 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:  972-447-1800 x1894 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 >>>