DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

Re: [wg-review] Comments on review of DNSO by Mr Park

I have experienced the same type of problem as outlined here,  only I was met
with many responses and finally ended up with being told to take my problem to
the country that owned the code.  There I was politely told sorry there is
nothing you can do.  The registry claimed to be a memeber of ICANN and was
determined not to be. Peter de Banc was most helpful.  The experience left us
looking for a ccTLD to "buy" which a group I work with is in the process of
In formulating the registration agreements I have been asked why adopt ICANN's
procedure and why pay them money.  For the life of me I can not give them a
reason, not the UDRP, not representation, not affiliation, not assistance.

Maybe this adds to the discussion.

Joanna Lane wrote:

> <snip>
> > 2.
> >
> > Different voices in the ICANN orbit sometimes argue that there are
> >     vast unrepresented blocks of Internet users whose rights are being
> >     abused, but there is no actual evidence that this is the case, and
> >     lots of evidence to the contrary
> >
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> ___
> >
> > Pilar Luque wrote:- I could not disagree more.  The evidence is that
> participation is very
> > low if we take into account the vast majority of Internet stakeholders
> > in the world.  In the ccTLD Constituency, to cite the example I know
> > best, only 40 ccTLD assist to such meetings out of 240 ccTLD worldwide.
> >
> <snip>
> Bret Busby wrote:- I have not previously been aware of point 2, above.
> I take issue with this (as a person whose rights, or, reasonable
> expectations have been abused, and, who has found that he has no
> redress), for a few reasons, one being the highly discriminatory UDRP,
> which favours the large corporations and the pirates, and, another being
> the monopolies created by ICANN, in authorising only single registrars
> for each ccTLD, to the detriment of all the citizens in each country,
> due to the lack of competition, created by ICANN.
> Apart from these, it is a reasonable expectation to expect a body with
> the role of ICANN, to acknowledge and respond to emails that voice
> concerns with the system, but, when a body such as ICANN, refuses to
> either acknowledge or respond to such emails, then ICANN indicates that
> it regards itself as absolute, and, beyond reproach. That is an abuse.
> I am aware of a ccTLD registrar, that has exercised fraud, by
> proclaiming its domain to be a gTLD, and, promoting the domain to be
> such. This has been brought to the awareness of ICANN, and, to the USA
> Internet fraud people, set up by the FBI, but, I have not been advised
> of any definite action taken by either body, to stop the fraud. The
> ccTLD registrar was located in the USA (NOT the .us ccTLD regisrar),
> hence the bringing it to the attention of the FBI Internet fraud agency.
> When such crimes are knowingly allowed to be practised on the Internet,
> by the powers that authorise the regiatrars, then, rights are being
> knowingly abused, and, the practice condoned.
> There is no means, of which I am aware, to deal with any complaints
> about rights, and, reasonable expectations, being abused on the
> Internet, the abuses occurring in ways such as I have mentioned here,
> and, previously, on this mailing list. There is therefore no means to
> quantify such problems.
> The contention above, that no evidence of abuses exist, and that much
> evidence exists to the contrary, is, therefore, in my opinion, in the
> circumstances, ill-founded.
> --
> [Joanna] I am inclined to agree with the substance of both of the above
> comments, if not all details.
> Could Ms Park please clarify her foundation for the original statement and
> consider revising this to take into account members comments?
> Thanks
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
tel;fax:(858) 571-8497
tel;work:(858) 571-8431

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