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

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

----- 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