Re: [ga] The End of Domain Tasting and its Consequences

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Eric and all former DNSO GA members or other interested parties and
stakeholders/users,

  Many proposals/paradigm's have been offered from several different
interested stakeholders/users groups, but all but those offered early on

in ICANN's history by a "Self chosen few" were rejected or largely
ignored.  Hence when the deck is stacked from the get go, defining
of issues in a cooperative manner with all interested parties and
stakeholders/users, meaning registrants, and users/non registrants,
a useful decision structure by which broadly acceptable set of "Rules"
cannot be reasonably determined.  If as Vint once expounded proudly
and IMHO correctly, "the internet is for everyone", than ICANN's
kings must bow to the will of those same interested parties and
stakeholders/users, lest these kings be dethroned in disgrace, 
and in their wake leave a mess of bad "Rules" which serve only 
the few and have bread distrust and destruction on a grand and 
very diverse scale.  Here is where ICANN to date has taken us all, 
and unless arrested, will drag most current registrants and
users for some years to come.

  So Dr. Dierker, please do not be so hard on Danny, as he has it 
mostly right in his stated remarks below...

Hugh Dierker wrote:

>    Oh Danny me Boy,
>
>   Gosh all darnit there banditos and carpetbaggers and lawyers
> everywhere.
>   The concept here is a paradigm where they can fight legal. Gloves on
> or bare knuckles, above or below the waist, a closed eye and the
> towell is thrown.
>
>   Melvin Belli my old mentor told me that "he who defines the issue
> wins".
>   The issue here is not tasting or winners and losers but a square
> into which actors
> must step and then abide by the rules with no caveat emptor  or the
> king can do no wrong rules.
>
>   Are ya with us Danny to build a structure and argue about where the
> rugs be laid later?
>
>   e
> Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   Contract provisions written into the ICANN-approved
> .com registry agreement and into the registry
> agreements for .biz, .org and .info allow for mining
> traffic data associated with non-existent domains.
>
> Domain name speculators will no longer have to test
> domains for traffic potential, soon they will be able
> to buy the data that reveals which unregistered names
> received the greatest number of hits.
>
> As the namespace has its fair share of bad actors one
> can expect a flash flood of typosquatting of
> unprecedented magnitude immediately upon the release
> of such data.
>
> This will have the effect of sending many parties into
> the courts in an attempt to deal with the
> typosquatting onslought.
>
> ICANN has Articles of Incorporation that state: "the
> Corporation shall... pursue the charitable and public
> purposes of lessening the burdens of government and
> promoting the global public interest..."
>
> By allowing this set of events to transpire ICANN will
> be increasing the burdens of government and will
> assuredly not be promoting the global public interest.
>
> Rampant typosquatting is in no one's best interest.
>
> We need to discuss all aspects of this issue further.
>
> For example, what if VeriSign and/or others decided to
> sell this data for a high price to a single speculator
> that had a relationship with a single registrar.
> Would this violate current registrar equal access
> requirements created to ensure competition? Probably
> not, as the registry would be selling data to a third
> party and not directly to the registrar community.
>
> What if these registries decided to put all their data
> (including data on existing domains) up for auction?
> Most likely a single party such as Google or Yahoo
> would prevail at auction. Is it appropriate for a
> single entity to have exclusive use of such registry
> data?
>
> Those favoring business rights would argue that as
> long as free market processes were used there are no
> grounds for complaint. On the other hand, there will
> be those that will argue that such data more
> rightfully belongs in the public sphere as property of
> the Internet commons.
>
> My point is that ICANN has rushed into signing the
> .com agreement without consideration of the
> ramifications of some of these contract clauses.
> These same clauses now appear in other registry
> contracts, and these clause do raise public policy
> concerns (think GAC).
>
> I think it's time to step back and ask the ICANN Board
> to consider invoking a "temporary specification" to
> put a freeze on these types of developments until the
> ICANN policy-advising bodies can tender
> well-considered policy recommendations.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>

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 jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827