[ga] FTC Ruling.

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Let us look at this FTC ruling with some scholarliness.

1.    It is a commission not a court
2.    It explained some of it's thoughts in dictum which is not
precedential, but hopefully helps us understand reasoning.
3.    It is not the final word, subject to some exhaustion of
administrative remedies it may go to a US Court.
4.    It is completely predicated upon a notion of "consumer
notification" of salient realities of ability to provide that which is
offered.
5.    It has no direct bearing upon our beloved inclusive roots.
6.    It has indirect bearing in that it informs them of a reasoning of
how to honestly conduct their business, which they are clearly doing.

I think it sends a clear message that inclusive roots and mechanics such
as dotGOD are perfectly legitimate.  And I wonder if it does not set
some question as to whether the Legacy/Toy root may well be open for
liability due to deception regarding
governance/stability/exclusiveness/accessability and services.
Certainly ICANN has deceived far more than our inclusive brothers and
sisters.

If I relied upon the MOU and White Paper (which I certainly have a right
to do) have I not been deceived as we stand today?  What disclosure has
been made that we quit following them -- and so do not by a dotCOM?

The ramifications of this ruling come home to roost at ICANN not the
inclusives.

Sincerely,
Eric

--
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