<<<
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> 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> While I do not envy them in 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. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: Re: [ga] OnlineNic's real
address<BR>From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx><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> </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> </DIV>
<DIV>Now that is what I call a response to a question.</DIV>
<DIV> </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> </DIV>
<DIV>Shananigans are ok for excercise of rights, but out of bounds for
enjoyment of economic priviledge.</DIV>
<DIV> </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><dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx></I></B> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT:
rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid">From: Danny Younger
<dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx><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
>>>
|