Hi Danny, Thanks for drawing this to my attention. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that allegations of illegal behavior are not -- or at least, should not be -- sufficient grounds for contract termination or arbitrary suspension of service. ISPs, or any company, really, should not be able to terminate service unless they pay an early cancellation fee (just like customers! what a thought!) or buy out the rest of the contract. Consequently, a customer "bill of rights" or standard minimum contract practices might be useful. I'd rather it not have to rely on gov't regulations (for a variety of reasons), but if they don't get their act together, it may come to that. So, yeah, ISPs should work together for their own and for their customers' long-term interests. Does ICANN touch on this issue? Insofar as domain name trademark issues are concern, I'd say "probably". I have in mind the DOW-CHEMICAL.COM domain case. Insofar as the overall "stability" of the domain system is concerned, I'd say "probably" because ensuring At-Large members et al. can access the content at DOW-CHEMICAL.COM reliably falls under their claim. (One would think ICANN would fall squarely on the side of DOW-CHEMICAL.COM and its content viewers...) But ICANN doesn't seem to have any direct power over ISPs. $0.02USD, -s On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 22:26, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote: > > As Verio is a member of the ISP constituency, is this an issue that should be > raised with the ISP constituency? Should ISPs be required to abide by a Code > of Practice that would prohibit such conduct under penalty of law? As > actions on the part of ISPs of the type mentioned above can affect the > legitimate interests of domain name registrants, is this an issue that falls > within the purview of ICANN? Inasmuch as ISPs are not yet a contracting > party in the ICANN world of interrelationships, does ICANN have any authority > over the ISP community?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part