Re: [ga] OnlineNic's real address

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Happy New Year, Prosperos Anos, Chuc Mung Nam Moi.
 
What a great year to be alive. As the stock markets like to say we have no 
where to go but up!!
 
Now that is what I call a response to a question.
 
I think you nailed it on the head. ICANN, needs to require transparency to play 
and they need to enforce their rules.
 
Shananigans are ok for excercise of rights, but out of bounds for enjoyment of 
economic priviledge.
 
>From a corporate psycho perspective: I think ICANN feels too insecure in their 
>position. They seem to lack the metaphoric balls to demand anything of anyone, 
>so they excercise passive aggressive planned incompetence. These guyettes and 
>gals need some confidence to stand up and kick some of these immoral thieving 
>bastards asses. We either need a transfusion into our status quo or some new 
>blood to bring in the new year.

--- On Fri, 1/2/09, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ga] OnlineNic's real address
To: hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Friday, January 2, 2009, 2:20 PM

Hello Eric,

Re:  Who cares and why... 

you may want to have a look at the cybersquatting case that resulted in a
$33.15 million judgment.

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-candce/case_no-3:2008cv02832/case_id-204081/

As it turns out, OnlineNic in China is the equivalent of GoDaddy in the U.S. --
it is China's largest registrar.  OnlineNic has actively engaged in
cybersquatting and it still awaits the results of additional lawsuits filed by
Microsoft and Yahoo.  

More importantly, it has close to 1.2 million registrations under management,
which means that registrants are at risk if the firm goes under.

Over the years we have seen numerous ICANN registrars build their own
portfolios and involve themselves in typosquatting/cybersquatting activities --
see for example exhibit 4 at http://www.domainnamenews.com/images/dell_doc2.pdf.
 

On occasion, the courts have locked down their ability to function as a
registrar -- see for example http://www.domaindoorman.com/lawsuit.htm

The last thing that we need is ICANN tacitly endorsing cybersquatting by
failing to yank the accredition of such firms, and it sure doesn't help when
ICANN contributes to shenanigans that allow a registrar to conceal its primary
place of business.

If ICANN really believed in transparency, it should publish registrar
accreditation application details in full for public scrutiny.

Happy New Year to all.
Danny