ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]

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

Re: [ga] Who can't be an icann registrar?

  • To: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>, Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Konrad Brandt <konrad_brandt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] Who can't be an icann registrar?
  • From: jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 19:24:15 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
  • Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=ix.netcom.com; b=YM9+2qhiXnxy/wpFev95/1vB3y3dZ6HOdTzziNxaIhRrSqkTic22ZN7mWlAGJh4+; h=Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:To:Subject:Cc:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:Content-Type:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
  • Reply-to: jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<HEAD>
<STYLE>body{font-family: Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color: #ffffff;color: black;}</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3086" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=compText>
<STYLE>body{font-family: Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color: #ffffff;color: black;}</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3086" name=GENERATOR>
<P>Dr. Dierker and all,</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>&nbsp; Maybe this is something that the current Whois WG sub group b should be</P>
<P>made aware of as registrart are the operations forlks managing the Whois</P>
<P>data?&nbsp; </P>
<P>In any event seems to me that an official complaint with the FTC regarding</P>
<P>this situation is in order.<BR><BR><BR></P>
<DIV id=compText>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid">-----Original Message----- <BR>From: Hugh Dierker <HDIERKER2204@xxxxxxxxx><BR>Sent: May 27, 2007 3:11 PM <BR>To: Karl Auerbach <KARL@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Konrad Brandt <KONRAD_BRANDT@xxxxxxxxx><BR>Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <BR>Subject: Re: [ga] Who can't be an icann registrar? <BR><BR>
<DIV>I remember something like "the pot calling the kettle black" and there was this other story about "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone". I am afraid ICANN is in no position to enforce moral, ethical or propriety rules on anyone.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>However if you are interested in this particular case I would (and I have not researched at all) venture to bet you that there is a probation type prohibition on recently convicted felons that prohibits them from engaging in activity closely related to that area for which they were convicted. These type of rules are enforced by law enforcement types not ICANN types.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Eric<BR><BR><B><I>Karl Auerbach &lt;karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;</I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Konrad Brandt wrote:<BR><BR>&gt; Can someone who has been banned for life by the US Federal Trade <BR>&gt; Commission own and operate an icann registrar?<BR><BR>Unless there is a US Federal law that imposes the decisions of the FTC <BR>onto nominally private bodies, such as ICANN, then the FTC's decision <BR>has no effect on ICANN.<BR><BR>Moreover, in the US, corporations are considered legal people - two <BR>different corporations are usually considered separate even if they have <BR>the same shareholders. This same kind of legal fiction about <BR>corporations tends to exist in many, perhaps most, countries.<BR><BR>So in answer to your question - Even people who have done bad things can <BR>become ICANN registrars.<BR><BR>&gt; Doesn't icann perform a background check on new registrars?<BR><BR>This is actually a much broader question.<BR><BR>Should ICANN be a consumer protection agency?<BR><BR>Or should ICANN simply be a gatekeeper to ensure that registries and <BR>registrars adhere to minimal compliance with *technical* mandates <BR>necessary to preserve the *technical* stability while leaving compliance <BR>to the requirements of law to the law creation and law enforcement <BR>mechanisms of the various countries?<BR><BR>Indeed, ICANN is already at risk as a combination in restraint of trade. <BR>Would it be wise for ICANN to increase that risk by denying someone a <BR>livelihood because that person does not pass ICANN's private standards <BR>of conduct? Some may be tempted to take the road of vigilantism, <BR>history has taught us that it is a dangerous road.<BR><BR>Were ICANN a properly empowered, properly chartered, and properly <BR>overseen governmental body, operating under well defined and practiced <BR>rules of transparency, openness, and accountability, and with a mandated <BR>requirement to listen to the public and honor those concerns then yes, <BR>ICANN could then, perhaps with relative safety, go into the kind of <BR>background histories.<BR><BR>But absent that kind of structure, and we know that ICANN is far from <BR>that structure, it is probably not wise for us to want to vest even <BR>further authority into ICANN.<BR><BR>--karl--<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<P>Regards,<BR><BR>Jeffrey A. Williams<BR>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)<BR>"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; Abraham Lincoln<BR><BR>"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very<BR>often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt<BR><BR>"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability<BR>depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by<BR>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."<BR>United States v. Carroll Towing&nbsp; (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]<BR>===============================================================<BR>Updated 1/26/04<BR>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of<BR>Information Network Eng.&nbsp; INEG. INC.<BR>ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827<BR></P></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></BODY>
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>