Re: [ga] Some issues raised by today's FTC action
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter de Blanc" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "'John Palmer'" <jp@ADNS.NET>; "'Ga'" <email@example.com>
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 8:17 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Some issues raised by today's FTC action
> I agree with the concerns about "ICANN approved" and "regulators" and
> "accredited domain name registrars"
> The credit card protest or charge back window is actually 6 months.
> Those are larger issues, apart from the specific .usa example.
> Does that mean that New.NET is not an "accredited domain name
> registrar," and subject to the same action?
> Peter de Blanc
I think people are looking at this with both relief and a bit of waryness.
Yes, failing to properly disclose the visibility issues should allow the
to take some consumer protection action, but we're all very interested in
who is behind this action. Was is Neulevel/ICANN pushing FTC? Is this
just the first step in a push to put legitimate Inclusive Namespace TLDs
out of business?
ICANN claims that they have no business worrying about the Inclusive
Namespace, but they lie. We all know that.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html