Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: richard_henderson
Date/Time: Tue, February 12, 2002 at 3:54 PM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.0 using Windows 98
Score: 5
Subject: Vint Cerf's astonishing defence


Letter written on behalf of Vint Cerf (LA Times):

"When we give an organization the rights to run with a new TLD, we make sure that they strive to comply with the intent of our guidelines. If we find that the corporation or its members are operating outside the realm of our guidance, we are always keen to remind them of their obligations - which, whilst completely non-binding, give firm indication of our committment."

If ICANN "make sure that they strive to comply with the intent of our guidelines" then WHY didn't they kick up a public stink when Afilias flouted the ICANN contracts; when Afilias executives and directors broke the agreed rules and submitted fraudulent applications; when Afilias officials make large amounts of money to sponsor ineligible applications (and then register them); when huge conflicts of interests emerge, with Registry officials making money in their 'alter ego' capacities as registrars; when the public asks Vint Cerf again and again to comment on detailed and serious causes for concern, and he does not reply or enter into dialogue.

To say that ICANN makes sure the registries abide by the rules is a laughable assertion, when everyone in the internet community KNOWS that they PRESIDED over the debacle and ALLOWED it all to happen.

Intervention: NIL

Sanctions against accredited registrars: NIL

Vint cerf's spokesman claims ICANN cannot enforce their own contracts!

That is laughable too! What kind of contract "isn't" a contract. Or what kind of organisation creates a contract which is allowed to be broken?

If ICANN had the powers to give an organisation the powers to run a Registry, and provided a contract, then even a first-grader would realise that the "right" to run the registry should be dependent on adherence to the contract.

ICANN has consciously allowed the new Registries to run wild and free - at the expense of consumer rights - and the question is why?

"The Registries obligations are completely non-binding."


Incompetent or corrupt?

So you are saying, Vint, that they can do whatever they want.


Message Thread:

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy