<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] GoDaddy.com Reaches Agreement to Help RegisterFly Customers
- To: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] GoDaddy.com Reaches Agreement to Help RegisterFly Customers
- From: jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 18:46:50 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
- Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=ix.netcom.com; b=LrERhwBFycrR0Wkztq/xQH7urVoZuJZUM8vyBjB/LMG5dt8d1roqVZ3tyoNbCRPt; 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>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3086" name=GENERATOR>Dr. Dierker and all, I believe that act is published on edgar. I am sure you can look up the information you need there as well as I can. It is also available on the federal registry which I gave you the link for yesterday. If you are having trouble finding same or either, maybe a personal Internet secretary is, or would be a good idea. However failing these suggestions, try searching for the act on ask.com as google doesn't provide a viable result list when searching for same and also google violates your privacy every time you use it. However isn't this getting a bit far off the subject line/topic? Perhaps a new subject line for this information and/or discussion is more appropriate?<BR><BR><BR>I am all ears and eyes. Under what provision of said Act? Eric<BR><BR><B><I>jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</I></B> wrote:
<STYLE>body{font-family: Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color: #ffffff;color: black;}</STYLE>
<ZZZMETA content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3086" name="GENERATOR">
<DIV>Dr. Dierker and all,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> I believe under the fair business practices act, ICANN does bare some</DIV>
<DIV>financial resposnibility irrespective of the RAA contract terms.<BR><BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid">-----Original Message----- <BR>From: Hugh Dierker <HDIERKER2204@xxxxxxxxx><BR>Sent: May 31, 2007 11:24 AM <BR>To: Bashar Al-Abdulhadi <BASHAR@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jeff Williams <JWKCKID1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Cc: Hugh Dierker <HDIERKER2204@xxxxxxxxx>, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, icann board address <ICANN-BOARD@xxxxxxxxx>, Suszanne Sene <SSENE@xxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Subject: Re: [ga] GoDaddy.com Reaches Agreement to Help RegisterFly Customers <BR><BR>
<DIV>Sorry for the two post delay.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The agreement these consumers had is here http://www.registerfly.com/<BR>It says agreement at the bottom of the page and will show the contract.</DIV>
<DIV>Until I see otherwise it cannot be duplicated here due to intellectual property issues(so please do not post it here)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>These folks signed up to an adhesion contract that fails, at least in California to meet minimum standards and therefore most likely any provisions that are against clear public policy should be stricken, and implied provisions will be supplied to make it legal, ie the return of funds for services not rendered which were contemplated originally.</DIV>
<DIV>If the defendant Fly has no assets to pay these out of the consumer is SOL.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>ICANN very clearly in bold print in the RAA agree to nothing regarding safegaurding the registrant (sec 10 I think).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The DoC is not a gaurantee commission and so they would not be of help.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I hope this illegal advise helps answer your question and strengthens your resolve to help us here on the RAA wg.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Eric </DIV>
<DIV><BR><B><I>Bashar Al-Abdulhadi <bashar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<DIV style="MARGIN-TOP: 0pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0cm"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-TOP: 0pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0cm">What about the people who funded their accounts with money and have cash balance in their account? who would give them back their money?</DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-TOP: 0pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0cm"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-TOP: 0pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0cm"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-TOP: 0pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0cm">Jeff Williams wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid465CFFD1.CD54FD77@xxxxxxxxxxxxx type="cite"><PRE wrap="">Dr. Dierker and all, Damaged Registrants is not and never has been a real concern of ICANN's. If it were, RegistryFly would likely not have happened. Lets be realistic and practical, good press is a form of perception that often times does not reflect reality. This is one of those all too frequent times... Hugh Dierker wrote: </PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><PRE wrap=""> The timing of the release seems to be more in favor of positive press for Go than it does for the benefit of agrieved registrants. This will be interesting
to see the fee structure for those who were in limbo through expiry dates. Hopefully some will be waived and others assumed by ICANN. Eric Danny Younger <A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E href="mailto:dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx";><dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx></A> wrote: <A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070529005374&newsLang=en";>http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070529005374&newsLang=en</A> </PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap=""><ZZZ!----> Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the
burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail <A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A> Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827 </PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>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> 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 (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. 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><ZZZ!-- --></DIV></ZZZBODY></ZZZBODY></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>Dr. Dierker and all, I believe under the fair business practices act, ICANN does bare some financial resposnibility irrespective of the RAA contract terms.<BR><BR><BR>Sorry for the two post delay. The agreement these consumers had is here http://www.registerfly.com/<BR>It says agreement at the bottom of the page and will show the contract. Until I see otherwise it cannot be duplicated here due to intellectual property issues(so please do not post it here) These folks signed up to an adhesion contract that fails, at least in California to meet minimum standards and therefore most likely any provisions that are against clear public policy should be stricken, and implied provisions will be supplied to make it legal, ie the return of funds for services not rendered which were contemplated originally. If the defendant Fly has no assets to pay these out of the consumer is SOL. ICANN very clearly in bold print in the RAA agree to nothing regarding safegaurding the registrant (sec 10 I think). The DoC is not a gaurantee commission and so they would not be of help. I hope this illegal advise helps answer your question and strengthens your resolve to help us here on the RAA wg. Eric <BR><B><I>Bashar Al-Abdulhadi <bashar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx></I></B> wrote: <BR>What about the people who funded their accounts with money and have cash balance in their account? who would give them back their money? <BR><BR>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> 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 (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. 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</DIV></BODY>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|