<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Fwd: Potential Danger Ahead for Registrants -- dot-info Abusive Domain Use Policy
- To: hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx, ga <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] Fwd: Potential Danger Ahead for Registrants -- dot-info Abusive Domain Use Policy
- From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 17:52:45 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
<HEAD>
<STYLE>body{font-family:
Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color:
#ffffff;color: black;}</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16674" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=compText>
<P>Mr. Dierker and all,</P>
<P> </P>
<P> I was responding to Georges forward.
see:http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg01633.html</P>
<P>in which my response was: <A
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg01633.html";>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg01633.html</A></P>
<P>in which what I stated was exactly correct. George did not in his
forwarded Email</P>
<P><A
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg01633.html";>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg01633.html</A>
provide the proper and</P>
<P>correct URL refrence to which he was attributing his remarks too. Ergo
I didn't bother to</P>
<P>respond to his latest attempt to mis-inform this agust body see: </P>
<P><A
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg01640.html";>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg01640.html</A> in
which he incorrectly</P>
<P>referred to the wrong threads as his refrence which were:</P>
<P><A
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg01632.html";>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg01632.html</A><BR><A
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg01633.html";>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg01633.html</A><BR>in
which only <A
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg01633.html";>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg01633.html</A></P>
<P>was in response to his own post as a forward (same as this thread) which
was</P>
<P><A
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg01632.html";>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg01632.html</A><BR>and
was not the thread I originally responded to in the absolute correct</P>
<P>manner in which i responded in my post response to this thread which again
was</P>
<P><A
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg01638.html";>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg01638.html</A></P>
<P>So I faild to see an "Grave" transgression on my part what so ever.
However</P>
<P>sending a forward no mentioning that George was correcting his original</P>
<P>post on a different thread via a "Forward" is in an of itself misleading</P>
<P>and refrenced less than completely accurate information regarding the</P>
<P>actual subject accordingly. As to wheather this is transgression is</P>
<P>"Grave" or not I suppose is a matter of opinion. But a transgression
on</P>
<P>Georges part it certainly is!<BR><BR><BR></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff
2px solid">-----Original Message----- <BR>From: Hugh Dierker
<HDIERKER2204@xxxxxxxxx><BR>Sent: Jun 22, 2008 2:34 PM <BR>To: ga
<GA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Subject: Re: [ga] Fwd: Potential Danger Ahead for
Registrants -- dot-info Abusive Domain Use Policy <BR><BR>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top>
<P>George,</P>
<P> </P>
<P>Is there some specific action here that you were hoping the GA List
would take within their limited capacity? It appears that your concern is valid
and grave. <BR><BR>--- On <B>Sat, 6/21/08, George Kirks
<I><gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx></I></B> wrote:<BR></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT:
rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid">From: George <SPAN>Kirikos</SPAN>
<gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx><BR>Subject: [ga] Fwd: Potential Danger Ahead for
Registrants -- dot-info Abusive Domain Use Policy<BR>To:
registryservice@xxxxxxxxx<BR>Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Date: Saturday, June 21,
2008, 6:00 PM<BR><BR><PRE>Hi again,
According to:
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05146.html
we are allowed to make comments at any time on proposed new services.
I'd like to put my comments below that I posted on the GA list on the
record. I'd oppose setting up registries as judge, jury AND
executioner. Even the UDRP has checks and balances. So should any new
policy, in order to protect the inherent rights of registrants to due
process. Removing a domain name from the zone file, without cancelling
the domain, is surely sufficient for even the most urgent cases of
abuse.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/
--- George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 15:50:19 -0700 (PDT)
> From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Potential Danger Ahead for Registrants -- dot-info Abusive
> Domain Use Policy
> To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Hi folks,
>
> ICANN has posted a request by Afilias for a new registry service in
> relation to "abusive" domains in dot-info:
>
> http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/index.html#2008007
> http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/afilias-request-20jun08.pdf
>
> While in general the proposal is motivated by good intentions, the
> devil is in the details. While most folks (including myself) probably
> care very little about the .info TLD, my concern is that any bad
> implementation in .info might be copied or used as a precedent in
> other
> more important TLDs, in particular .com run by VeriSign.
>
> In particular:
>
>
> "Pursuant to Section 3.6.5 of the RRA, Afilias reserves the right to
> deny, **cancel** or transfer any registration or transaction, or
> place
> any domain name(s) on registry lock, hold or similar status, that it
> deems necessary, **in its discretion**;........"
>
> (emphasis added)
>
> I would be against giving VeriSign (if the model was copied to .com)
> that discretionary power over my company's domains, especially the
> "right to cancel." What exactly is "illegal"? In
China, I'm sure
> there
> are many things that are illegal that are perfectly legal in Canada,
> the USA or the EU. Suppose a domain name gets hacked for a brief
> time,
> and is temporarily used to serve up spam or malware, etc. That
> company
> experiencing bad luck, having their site hacked, can then be put
> totally out of business in the event that the registry operator, "in
> its discretion," decides to cancel the domain name.
>
> Thus, I think concern should be raised that any implementation be
> very
> conservative in order to protect the inherent right of registrants to
> due process. The potential for harm in a bad implementation is
> enormous, and companies and individuals could be put out of business
> if
> a valuable domain name is taken from a registrant.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P><BR>Regards,</P>
<P>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders
strong!)<BR>"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -<BR>
Abraham Lincoln</P>
<P>"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is<BR>very
often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt</P>
<P>"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden,
B;<BR>liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by<BR>P: i.e.,
whether B is less than PL."<BR>United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d
169 [2d Cir.
1947]<BR>===============================================================<BR>Updated
1/26/04<BR>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS.<BR>div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.<BR>ABA member in
good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail<BR><A
href="mailto:jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A><BR>My Phone:
214-244-4827</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|