Re: [ga] GoDaddy VP Caught Bidding Against Customers

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Debbie and all,

  With all due respect, you seem to be arguing in a circle.

  Additionally, .bank already exists on alternative root systems
and has for a number of years now.  As such, for ICANN to
create or introduce a .bank TLD/gTLD knowing this, they would
be yet again creating a situation for collisions on a number of levels.
To justify doing so as "Competition" as Roberto has suggested, is
a very spacious argument at best.  Unfair competition statutes as
well the predatory business practices act would seem to apply
here.  So it seemed to me that Roberto and possible the ICANN
bod is signaling that another .BIZ situation is about to occur and
are willing or preparing for a legal challenge at some point to same.

Debbie Garside wrote:

> I can see benefit in having .bank for security purposes.  Logins for home
> users etc. could have built in software that checks to make sure that the
> TLD is correct before asking for login and password.  I am sure that this
> type of software would be (relatively) easy to design (and install locally)
> and would save a lot of people from internet fraud.  On the other hand,
> Sotiris is right, the fraudsters will quickly find other ways.  It is about
> education, essentially, and I don't think the banks do enough on this score.
> But a .bank coupled with the right software would go some way to restore
> good faith, good practice and relatively good security IMHO.
>
> Best regards
>
> Debbie
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Danny Younger
> > Sent: 29 June 2008 17:12
> > To: sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [ga] GoDaddy VP Caught Bidding Against Customers
> >
> >
> > Like the author of the article, I see authentication
> > mechanisms (such as those used by .museum) as a way to reduce
> > the impact of phishing on this sector.  Rather than asking me
> > how a .bank proposal would add value to the namespace, why
> > not ask the "Banks in ICANN Consortium" that recently joined
> > the BC?  We all know that many will join the BC in order to
> > become future registry operators. Doubtless they will have a
> > suitable answer for you to consider.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Sun, 6/29/08, sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > <sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > From: sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] GoDaddy VP Caught Bidding Against Customers
> > > To: dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx
> > > Cc: sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Date: Sunday, June 29, 2008, 11:39 AM
> > > > Re:  Still waiting for you to explain how a .bank TLD
> > > will add value to
> > > > the
> > > > namespace.
> > > >
> > > > Have a look at this article which might answer your
> > > question:
> > > >
> > >
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/dec/07/money.guardianweeklyt
> > > echnologysection
> > > >
> > > > Of course, it's ultimately up to whomever proposes
> > > a .bank or a similar
> > > > string to make the case for the added value they will
> > > provide.
> > >
> > > Actually, YOU made the statement that .bank would add value
> > so I asked
> > > you to make the case... As for the issue which is raised in the
> > > article you cite, that is nothing new. Despite a
> > never-ending parade
> > > of security measures over the past several decades, banks are still
> > > robbed and fraud still goes on even though we have all sorts of
> > > systems set up to prevent such things. Do you seriously
> > think that a
> > > .bank TLD will curtail online bank fraud? Creative
> > criminals will find
> > > a way to get around the measure just as they always have...
> > So again,
> > > tell us how YOU see the .bank TLD adding value to the namespace.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"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.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My Phone: 214-244-4827