ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


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

RE: [ga] OnlineNic's real address

  • To: hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: RE: [ga] OnlineNic's real address
  • From: "Karl E. Peters" <tlda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 07:19:26 -0700

<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000; 
font-size:10pt;"><div>All,</div>
<div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;What the soft handed approach from ICANN says to 
me is that ICANN, at least at some level, realizes that they are NOT "in 
charge" of the <U>world'</U>s internet any longer. Now they are competing for 
market share with many forces while not being able to admit there is even a 
competition for fear the competition will simply opt to play on a different 
field altogether. This puts them in the unenviable position of trying to 
enforce rules on people and organizations that really don't need ICANN as much 
as ICANN needs them, essentially hoping a slap on the hand to those people will 
satisfy us and not have to REALLY punish them and drive them away completely. 
</div>
<div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;While I do not envy them in&nbsp;the slightest, 
they are now paying for ignoring the fact of their replacability for so long. 
Having to fight a war while acting like everything is alright must be tough! We 
have been predicting this for a long time. Surely ICANN saw it coming too, but 
could not admit to it without admitting they had a weakness.</div>
<div>-Karl E. Peters, President</div>
<div>Top-Level Domain Association, Inc.&nbsp;</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: Re: [ga] OnlineNic's real 
address<BR>From: Hugh Dierker &lt;hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Fri, 
January 02, 2009 9:57 pm<BR>To: dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx<BR>Cc: 
ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR><BR></div>
<div>
<TABLE class="" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD class="" vAlign=top>
<DIV>Happy New Year, Prosperos Anos, Chuc Mung Nam Moi.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>What a great year to be alive. As the stock markets like to say we have no 
where to go but up!!</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Now that is what I call a response to a question.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I think you nailed it on the head. ICANN, needs to require transparency to 
play and they need to enforce their rules.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Shananigans are ok for excercise of rights, but out of bounds for 
enjoyment of economic priviledge.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>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.<BR><BR>--- On <B>Fri, 1/2/09, 
Danny Younger <I>&lt;dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx&gt;</I></B> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: 
rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid">From: Danny Younger 
&lt;dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Subject: Re: [ga] OnlineNic's real 
address<BR>To: hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx<BR>Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Date: Friday, 
January 2, 2009, 2:20 PM<BR><BR><PRE>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. <a 
href="http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-candce/case_no-3:2008cv02832/case_id-204081/";
 target=_blank 
mce_href="http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-candce/case_no-3:2008cv02832/case_id-204081/";>http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-candce/case_no-3:2008cv02832/case_id-204081/</a>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 <a 
href="http://www.domainnamenews.com/images/dell_doc2.pdf."; target=_blank 
mce_href="http://www.domainnamenews.com/images/dell_doc2.pdf.";>http://www.domainnamenews.com/images/dell_doc2.pdf.</a>
 

On occasion, the courts have locked down their ability to function as a
registrar -- see for example <a href="http://www.domaindoorman.com/lawsuit.htm"; 
target=_blank 
mce_href="http://www.domaindoorman.com/lawsuit.htm";>http://www.domaindoorman.com/lawsuit.htm</a>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 </PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></div>
<div><BR></div></span></body></html>



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