ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Did Jeff Davies find a legal loophole? | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 143 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Re: Did Jeff Davies find a legal loophole?
    by Anonymous on Thursday January 02 2003, @06:59PM (#10843)
    To some Afilias and sundry associates appears to have acted foolishly, perhaps even callously with regard to it's customers, particularly landrush customers. Perhaps, even enough of a pattern to warrant an investigation, however, that's quite a distance from accusing them of breaking the law. Exactly what law did they break? Speculate all you care to in private, however, let them have an opportunity to tell their side of the story. Everyone deserves a fair hearing. A virtual lynching is something not desired. Develop the facts, if they exist, and proceed with deliberate care. The Davies litigation might take months or even years to resolve. - innocent until proven guilty
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Did Jeff Davies find a legal loophole? by Anonymous
    Re: Did Jeff Davies find a legal loophole?
    by Anonymous on Thursday January 02 2003, @09:34PM (#10844)
    I agree that everyone deserves a fair hearing, and the chance to tell their side of the story. But two points:


    Firstly, Afilias have a track record of using spin which later turns out to be just that - spin. Their criticism of sunrise abuse, when they were associated with it themselves; the denial of the scale of the problem, until other people proved the reality; the failure ever to apologise to defrauded landrush customers...


    Secondly, everyone deserves a fair hearing, but people like me have been asking for responses to serious issues (like the ones outlined in these posts) from both Afilias and ICANN.


    The policy has been one of silence and ignoring the issues in the hope that people would just go away. There has been no facing up to accountability. No open and detailed discussion of the hard facts.


    I have repeatedly asked Afilias and Hal Lubsen for some explanation of why they broke the rules over the Lorenz case - they've never answered. I've complained about the range of abuses listed in these posts. They've never answered. They've simply never been prepared to enter into open, real, detailed discussion.


    The case with ICANN has been the same. When you have a registrar issue which results from ICANN's policies and agreements, or when you have issues regarding ICANN and its policies, you would expect to get some comment from their Registrar Liaison executive, particularly as ICANN is a not-for-profit serving the public interest (supposedly).


    But I have now been waiting over 250 days for a response from Dan Halloran over these and other issues which appear to involve breach of rules, abuse of process, and the whole matter of ICANN accreditation.


    Dan Halloran has not, after 250 days and repeated mails, even had the courtesy to acknowledge my mails.


    I don't find that acceptable for a person in his position working for an organisation which supposedly works for a fair distribution of the DNS to everyone.


    Dan Halloran has separately said in interview that ICANN's approach is "laissez-faire". But I regard ICANN's approach as very deliberate and very partisan.


    So yes, let these parties have their fair say. But don't blame people if they continue to draw attention to abuses of process which have HURT other people, when Afilias and ICANN have never discussed the details of the concerns.


    The value of a court case might be that they would finally HAVE to.


    Most people just want the truth to be told. ICANN and Afilias appear to have been running scared from that truth.




    Richard Henderson


    [ Reply to This | Parent ]


    Search ICANNWatch.org:


    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