Re: [atlarge-discuss] Challenge from Ross Rader

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Richard and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,

  Excellent observations, and points of view here that need consideration!
Well done here again Richard!  Keep up the good work!

  I agree that the challenge to Ross that Richard here made is
one that bares serious consideration.  It should be understood
and Richard and earlier Joop put it that Registrars such as Tucows
are seemingly taking a Registrar point of view towards Stakeholder/User
participation that is less than reasonable to those same stakeholders/users
and as such explains to a great degree why the disconnect in this
business sector exists and in some ways is encouraged by ICANN..



Richard Henderson wrote:

> Hello Ross
>
> Tucows - reseller - SPY PRODUCTIONS - .info sunrise - they put in the fake
> TM numbers for their customers (made up the numbers themselves - the
> customers didn't do it - outcome: loss to many other LR1 customers
> worldwide - action taken by Tucows? - are Spy Productions still trading
> through you - yes
>
> Since the registrar community did not protect the interests of individual
> users in this case (or in the case of the 200+ Yesnic fake Sunrise
> registrations, or the Joker ones, or the "2040" registrations also
> registered through Tucows, where customers were actually told NOT to worry
> if they didn't have a TM but to go ahead and apply in the .info Sunrise - in
> short, for these reasons and hundreds of others:
>
> OF COURSE the biggest constituency of all, the hundreds of millions of
> ordinary internet users, should have representation on the ICANN Board,
> because other constituencies in ICANN's discredited process have failed to
> take action against these abuses.
>
> CHALLENGE to ROSS RADER : what accountability has Tucows taken for the Spy
> Productions fakes or the other reseller fakes, and incitement to fake? What
> actions did Tucows take in these cases? How did Tucows actions protect the
> individual user or redress the wrong they suffered? In short, is the DNS
> administered for the benefit of registrars or for the benefit of the
> worldwide community?
>
> Incidentally, I have no big axe to grind against Tucows. I quite like
> Tucows. There are many less ethical registrars than Tucows. But as
> demonstrated, even Tucows has failed to take action to protect individual
> users in these cases. And others are far worse. There are many other aspects
> of ICANN's work which impact upon users. I have just referred to the New TLD
> process as a "demonstation" of one of these areas where it is so vital to
> have the voice of ordinary users represented in ICANN.
>
> Richard Henderson
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
> To: <ross@byte.org>; <DannyYounger@cs.com>
> Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 12:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Challenge from Ross Rader
>
> > At 06:02 p.m. 22/08/2002 -0400, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> > > From Ross Rader's byte.org blog:
> > >
> > >"I asked the question a week ago, but still don't "get" the answers. A
> few
> > >people included me in a thread going on over on the at-large discussion
> list
> > >regarding what the arguments for and against individual participation in
> > >ICANN actually are. The answers coming back weren't all that convincing -
> all
> > >I managed to take away was that users are entitled to a seat because they
> use
> > >the system. Not terribly convincing. Convince me."
> >
> > Ross,
> >
> > Imagine for a moment that you are not a registrar, but a registrant.
> >
> > Then read you own Tucows DN registration contract or the contract of any
> > other registrar.
> > Do you not think you would have written that contract a litte differently
> > if you were the Representative of the Registrants, authorised to negotiate
> > such a Registrar contract on behalf of the registrants?
> > How about clauses that allow deletions at the registrar's sole discretion?
> > Liability exclusions for gross neglect?
> >
> > I may be able to convince you as an Individual, but in this debate you are
> > a Registrar, the *other* contracting party.
> > Of course the Registration industry cannot be "convinced" that  unilateral
> > contracts of adhesion with captive customers are not a great idea.
> > I'm afraid more than convincing is needed.
> >
> > --Joop
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de