| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
.US Registry Deleting Domain Names Retroactively!!
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 41 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
|
Bret Fausett pointed me to this ICANN Blog item and this .us policy, which I admit I'd forgotten about. I have some doubts about the legality of this policy, although the fact that its been laundered through a contractor (the usual US-domain-name-policy strategy) makes a lawsuit that much more complex and uncertain. Indeed, if there's no evidence that the policy was encouraged either overtly or covertly by the government (and I wasn't paying any attention to this issue, so I have no idea what the facts are), then the NSI precedent suggests that a court would not find this to be illegal.
My meta-view remains the same old boring song: none of this would matter if there were a constant stream of new TLDs with varying policies. In that world, we'd appreciate having a few TLDs with restrictive policies, even (perish the thought) a few with *web content restrictions* they would police. If there were a multiplicity of competitive open and closed domains, this just wouldn't be an issue.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| | |
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Move out of your house and find another one, fool.
++Peter
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
My reading of the policy is that registrants of such deleted names will have their money refunded. And, I do think it is the consumer's job (particularily in the US) to talk to Commerce. -g
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
That's ICANN's job? This is a country code that does not have a contract with ICANN. ICANN has no role currently in the administration of .us.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
If sour grapes means pointing out an argument that is rediculous on its face, then sour grapes it is.
Those who say there is no demand are merely trying to maintain the artificial scarcity that props up the value of their speculated domains, or their registries. I suspect that quite a few anonymous posters, like yourself, work for Afilias or Neulevel or Verisign.
If there is no demand, then new registries will go out of business. The market takes care of itself. In no other market are such protections enacted.
++Peter
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Hey Jay, where you been hiding since domain policy went away? Always enjoyed your views even if I sometimes disagreed. -g
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| | 4 replies beneath your current threshold. |
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
