Re: [ga] ICANN Officially Approves .jobs and .travel TLD's

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Richard and all former DNSO GA members or other interested stakeholders/users,

  I along with a number of others argued strongly that sTLS's was only
a good idea if the registry and registrar contracts had enforceable
rules by which ICANN, and/or the registrants could impose enforcement
or incentive of same via fines and or immediate revocation of the
registry and registrars ability to manage the said sTLD and
registration of Domains in said name space...

  The ICANN BoD and staff ignored this as a reasonable requirement,
and now registrants amongst other stakeholders/users are being hood-winked
and/or defrauded...

Richard Henderson wrote:

> Jeff's comments here are bang on target:
>
> "we have already seen with .pro, enforcement is not there effectively"
> "an analogy might be, spare the rod, spoil the child. No use of the rod in
> ICANN's case, who do not have the rod - which means the child,
> Registrars/Registries, will be spoiled and run amuck...  So we have seen
> with .pro thus far, and will likely see with .jobs, .xxx. .asia, .travel,
> and especially with .mail and .tel..."
> "will such sTLD's have real meaning? Not likely as we have seen with .pro.
> Hence then, market forces need the help of others to provide regulation
> and/or legislation: i.e. pre-emptive rules"
>
> Unless some degree of enforcement is applied by ICANN, these sTLD registries
> will be defined solely by market forces, with Registrar or Registries
> deciding what to do with them. The need for integrity of identity, and
> verification, will then become secondary to the ability to sell domains to
> anyone. It is not unreasonable to expect pre-emptive Agreements to be
> adhered to, *including the intentions of the sTLD and its processes of
> verification* and for Registries to administer these TLDs responsibly in
> accordance with the purpose, spirit, and intent of the Agreements...
>
> ... or face enforcement, or ultimately loss of the Registry when it comes up
> for review.
>
> I really have to question the quality of work by whoever takes
> responsibility for drafting ICANN's loose and flimsy contracts/agreements.
> We have seen, time after time, poor advice or wording resulting in problems
> which could have been avoided (such as the Auerbach case, the .info
> Sunrise - though that was more a lack of enforcement - and here, the loose
> wording of the .pro agreement which has made it possible for a company to
> exploit a loophole, even if the Registry still seems to be in defiance of
> the stated and well-recognised intentions and purposes of its Agreement,
> actually using the verification process to allow unverified people access to
> the TLD, when the whole point was to use it for the opposite purpose).
>
> It's staggering. The Registry Agreement makes such clear statements of the
> intention of a "restricted" registry using verification for the purposes of
> 'keeping unchecked people out', and in practical terms RegistryPro have
> broken their Agreement by ignoring the clear *intentions* of the Agreement
> and its Verification processes, by actually using verification to give
> unchecked people access to domain names reserved for specific sets of
> professionals. The Agreement, in my opinion, has been broken  - breach of
> its clear purposes and intended outcomes, and misuse of its verification
> processes to bypass the basic intentions of the Agreement.
>
> So yes, Jeff - and ICANN - we need pre-emptive rules. But they need to be
> sharp, enforcing, penalty-related rules which will result in TLDs being
> defined by the consensus work of many constituencies... not the whim and
> fancy of a single registrar or registry out for a quick buck.
>
> Otherwise no sTLD can be taken seriously, and we may as well abort the whole
> project.
>
> Yrs,
>
> Richard H

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827