Re: [ga] Care needed over the .travel Registry Agreement

[Marcus Gilmore <marcusgilmore@xxxxxxxxx>]

pussy.us, sluts.us are both registered in the .US tld.. Should we go
examine the content of each .US website and see if the integrity of
the TLD has been undermined? Richard, you examine domains that start
with the letter A-M and i'll take the ones that start with the letter
N-Z. We'll then post our finding here so that ICANN can delete the
domains.

Then we'll do the same with .COM... Only commercial domains should be
allowed to exist there... If we find any non-commercial registrations
we will notify ICANN so that they can delete the domains. After that
we'll move on to .NET cause only ISPs should be allowed to register
.NET domains. Do you see where I'm going with this?

/Marcus

On Apr 2, 2005 11:40 AM, Richard Henderson
<richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I wonder what provisions ICANN propose to make to ensure that a restricted
> TLD like .travel does not get "invaded" by uncertified "gatecrashers" like
> the thousands who have obtained domains in recent weeks from another
> restricted TLD: .pro?
>  
> The registrar EnCirca used a loophole in the ICANN Registry Agreement to act
> as "proxy registrant" for thousands of customers, so that the applicants
> could avoid the rigorous checks and authorisations which were meant to
> "restrict" the TLD to certain categories of users.
>  
> Now we have the prospect of .travel, also intended to be restricted to
> authorised categories of people, but what is there to stop the same device
> being used to get round the "roadblock", with one eligible entity using
> their eligibility to act as "proxy registrant" to thousands of unchecked and
> unauthorised domain speculators and, in theory, the entire human race?
>  
> This seems a matter which needs urgent attention over the drafting of the
> agreement, or history may repeat itself, and the whole concept of
> "restricted TLDs" will be called into question.
>  
> I would also argue that ICANN should reserve the right, in the wording of
> the Agreement, to enforce amendments to this Agreement, where it considers
> that the integrity and stability of the registry is threatened - see, for
> example, the wording for the .us TLD:
>  
> http://www.nic.us/registrars/accreditation/usTLD_AdministratorRegistrar_Agreement.pdf
> "usTLD Administrator reserves the right to deny, cancel or transfer any
> registration that it deems necessary, in its discretion; (1) to protect the
> integrity and stability of the registry" (my thanks to the ICANN director
> who pointed this up to me earlier this week, stressing the word "Integrity")
>  
> I would argue that ICANN should reserve the right, not only to cancel
> registrations that undermine the integrity of the TLD and its Agreement, but
> also the right to intervene and amend the Registry Agreement itself, where
> blatant loopholes are discovered and exploited. This right of intervention
> and amendment should be a unilateral right, if the TLD itself will not
> co-operate.
>  
> Yrs,
>  
> Richard Henderson