Echoing Roberto, if we had moved based on those complains we had lost first round battle to really "save" the registrants. The consequence of our correct move is the new escrow system set up, which is now assuring immediate relocation in case of registrar fail. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 Tel - +55113266.6253 Mob- +55118181.1464 vanda@uol.com.br Before print think about the Environment "The information contained in this message - and attached files - is restricted, and its confidentiality protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and notify the sender immediately. Please be advised that the improper use of the aforementioned information will create grounds for legal action." "As informações existentes nesta mensagem e nos arquivos anexados são para uso restrito, com sigilo protegido por lei. Caso não seja o destinatário, favor apagar esta mensagem e notificar o remetente. O uso impróprio das informações desta mensagem será tratado conforme a legislação em vigor." -----Mensagem original----- De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de Roberto Gaetano Enviada em: sexta-feira, 7 de dezembro de 2007 12:02 Para: 'Danny Younger'; 'At-Large Worldwide' Assunto: Re: [At-Large] Moore v. ICANN Danny Younger wrote:
Nice try at spin. Responding to those that contact your organizational Forum, and bringing those registrant concerns to the attention of the Board is hardly the totality that constitutes a consumer protection agency.
True. But what I am saying is that this is not the purpose for which ALAC exists, not at all its core business. Its core business is developing policy statements, not to deal with customer complaints. Had ALAC plenty of resources, it would be a "nice thing to have", but since it is not the case, the little resources have to be concentrated on what is essential. Since I think that I have made my point ad nauseam, this is my last post on the subject.
So let me try to understand you correctly wit regard to Mr. Moore's issue, you are arguing that a registrar can choose not to renew a domain name that he has sponsored even if he has received payment for such a renewal, and that action does not violate the registrar's sponsorship obligations as set out in the RAA. Is that correct?
Not at all. What I said was: "The reason why RegisterFly has lost its accreditation was because of violation of its contract *with ICANN*, specifically not complying with the redressment measures put in place, not at all because of violation of its contract *with its customers*, which was the subject of Mr. Moore's lawsuit." Which means, although I am not a native english speaker, that what RegisterFly did one year before was not at all a "good thing", but was not a sufficient reason to terminate its accreditation. Had ICANN terminated RegisterFly accreditation on the basis of the complaint of Mr. Moore, ICANN would be now in litigation with RegisterFly, and probably on the losing side. And my remark was in reply to your statement that follows:
... and yet a year later RegisterFly is disaccredited for precisely the actions decribed by Mr. Moore. Also on this, I think that my position is clear enough, in spite of your attempts to transform the meaning of words.
Cheers, Roberto _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org