ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?

  • To: Milton Mueller <Mueller@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?
  • From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 20:19:21 -0700
  • Cc: roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, metalitz@xxxxxxxx, tom@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Reply-to: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<div>I did not mean to come off as antagonistic. And perhaps I could have
been clearer.</div>
<div>I am familiar with contracts of adhesion. I am not arguing
whether&nbsp;the&nbsp;Registration Agreement for gTLDs is one or not.
My point was meant to be&nbsp;that regardless,&nbsp;I&nbsp;would only
view it as a problem if there were no other choices.</div>
<div>As I said, there are options available to obtain many of the benefits
of domain name *ownership* (which may be a bit of misnomer in
itself)&nbsp;without being the registrant of record. If you consider
the ultimate goal in most cases is to have a web site, there are
numerous ways to develop and maintain a website without *owning* a
domain name. </div>
<div>The context of this task force's work&nbsp;is within the&nbsp;ICANN
accredited TLDs&nbsp;whose agreements&nbsp;come along with the
provisions that are being debated here. However, there are
alternatives, ccTLDs for example. In fact some of them are becoming as
popular within their own countries as COM, take DE for example. Many
are available to anyone outside their country, TV, CC, and&nbsp;WS for
example. And&nbsp;others&nbsp;rival&nbsp;the new gTLDs, US for
<div>I'm also not arguing one way or the other on your specific privacy
concerns, just suggesting that any policy development done by this task
force should be properly framed.</div>
blue 2px solid"><BR>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: RE:
[dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?<BR>From: "Milton
Mueller" &lt;Mueller@xxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Tue, October 05, 2004 4:50
pm<BR>To: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Cc: roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
tom@xxxxxxxxxx<BR><BR>Tim:<BR><BR>Please explain to me how you can
"have a domain name"<BR>without registering it through an
ICANN-accredited registrar.<BR><BR>Your message rather naively implies
that the "caveats and<BR>responsibilities" associated with a domain
name were <BR>created by God or the laws of physics. I'm sure you
know<BR>better than that. They were imposed by ICANN
accreditation<BR>contracts. ICANN has a monopoly over the root, and,
due<BR>to the dominance of certain interest groups over
ICANN<BR>policies, it uses that monopoly power to impose certain
<BR>conditions on registrants. <BR><BR>In short, you are not "choosing"
the responsibilities<BR>and caveats, they are imposed on you. Ask your
lawyer<BR>what a "contract of adhesion" is and you'll
understand<BR>what I'm talking about.<BR><BR>&gt;&gt;&gt; Tim Ruiz
&lt;tim@xxxxxxxxxxx&gt; 10/3/2004 12:00:52 PM &gt;&gt;&gt;<BR><BR>Not
that I'm not somewhat sympathetic to your argument, but it
doesn't<BR>really hold water. Becoming the actual registrant of a
domain name does<BR>has certain *caveats* attached, if you will.
However, it is not the only<BR>way to have a domain name, make use of
it, or have a web site. You have<BR>choices. If you choose to register
the name as your own, you are<BR>choosing the responsibilities and
caveats that come along with it. </BLOCKQUOTE>

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