Re: [ga] Why not to do something real this time ? (was: another twist on whois)

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

I am in complete agreement as regards the international spectrum.  However that is a cost of doing international business public or private. Because we have made it easy does not change the responsibilities.  Troublesome but real.  Clearly there has to be some responsibility on behalf of a registrant.
   
  Eric

kidsearch <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
      ues, but suing someone in asia or eastern europe, etc. is rather cost prohibitive. the Internet requires some international oversight. existing laws do not cover many things that are unique to the internet.
   
   
    ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Hugh Dierker 
  To: kidsearch ; ga ; JFC Morfin 
  Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 11:37 PM
  Subject: Re: [ga] Why not to do something real this time ? (was: another twist on whois)
  

  Just sue the sons of guns.  You must see that the law already exists.  Use it or lose it.
   
  To get some ugly you must be some ugly, slime needs to be dealt with accordingly.
   
  I think this is a fraud and while i do not practice i do know of what I speak.
   
  Eric
   
  ps. Let us make the standards that must be followed.

kidsearch <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
          Good suggestion. Let's do it.
   
    ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: JFC Morfin 
  To: ga 
  Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 10:59 AM
  Subject: [ga] Why not to do something real this time ? (was: another twist on whois)
  

Vittorio, Roberto, Danny, Chris, Joop, and others from GA, ALAC, NCUC,
why not to consider writing a Registry/Registrar/Resellers Best 
Practices document including all the user protection clauses which 
exist or which could reasonably be implemented. Then we make it an 
RFC. This would permitting RRRs to compete in terms of best user 
interest respect in publishing the clauses they adhere to or not.
jfc

At 11:55 21/01/2007, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

>Dena Whitebirch ha scritto:
>>This post will likely bring up a ton of interrelated issues that 
>>although I tried, I couldn't figure how to separate for discussion 
>>purposes.  I guess it's a bit like the internet...one thing 
>>connects to the rest.
>
>Your story is interesting, though not so uncommon, so I have 
>forwarded the post to the ICANN Board list.
>
>ICANN si not the primary subject in this kind of problems, but I am 
>wondering whether there could actually be some consumer protection 
>measures that ICANN could take: for example it could add to the 
>registrar accreditation agreements a clause that requires them to 
>force their resellers to expose certain things to final registrants 
>(such as, who is the actual registrar company) or to avoid others 
>(such as using terms like "registration" unless there is an actual 
>registration in the final customer's name). Even if compliance of 
>these clauses would be a responsibility of the reseller only, and if 
>ICANN wouldn't usually be in the position to enforce them, at least 
>they would provide a benchmark of "good practice", and something 
>that registrants could use in their favour in the case of a controversy.
>
>Regards,
>--
>vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
>-------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------
>

 
    
---------------------------------
  Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.

 
---------------------------------
 Get your own web address.
 Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.