Protest at tomorrow's ICANN meeting
I hope some who are in attendance will also check out this protest. I think this articulates a widespread frustration with ICANN's responsiveness, in general. “Over the past seven years, we have tried to communicate [our] opposition to dot-xxx at every opportunity, using every means and forum available,” she said. “We have participated in public comment periods, letter writing, conversations with stakeholders and testimony at ICANN’s public meetings. All three of the world’s existing trade associations have issued statements in opposition. “Although we appreciate the GAC’s responsiveness to our concerns, it is clear that the ICANN board of directors has not heard us,” Duke continued. “We hope that Thursday’s rally will raise the volume, enabling ICANN to get the message, once and for all, that ICM’s dot-xxx application does not have the required support of the sponsored community.” What's it about? .xxx, of course. Adult Industry Leaders to Protest Dot-xxx During ICANN Meeting http://www.ynot.com/content/116643-adult-industry-leaders-protest-dot-xxx-ic... -- Neil Schwartzman Executive Director CAUCE The Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email, North America Inc. http://cauce.org http://twitter.com/cauce IM: caucecanada Tel.: +1 (303) 800 6345
On 03/16/2011 10:31 PM, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
I hope some who are in attendance will also check out this protest. I think this articulates a widespread frustration with ICANN's responsiveness, in general.
I very much disagree. ICANN is not the world's sex monitor. Or to use stronger words, ICANN is not the world's censor of the internet nor is ICANN a tool for would-be censors. (Similarly, ICANN ought not be a trademark monitor.) ICANN does not force anyone to use or not use any particular part of the domain name system. ICANN is not a creator of internet ghettos - except for human lemmings who fail to see that they possess the power of choice. The reason that ICANN has become more bloated than Jabba the Hutt is that ICANN rarely says "that is not our job". But with .xxx ICANN has, for once, done the right thing. Whether .xxx is used by people who like the Roman numerals for 30, or by people who like images of the three crosses on Calvary, or by purveyors of TNA is simply not of ICANN's concern. If you think that .xxx is to be banned then I suggest that there is an argument that could be made for banning something that many consider worse than sexual porn - and that would be images of murder and torture of human beings. Yet consider how that would denude the internet of great works of Christian art or books on the lives of saints. --karl--
The responsiveness problem is with the industry, who sat on their hands when the application went through, isn't it? Just like the GAC they missed the boat. A learning moment for all. On 03/16/2011 10:31 PM, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
I hope some who are in attendance will also check out this protest. I think this articulates a widespread frustration with ICANN's responsiveness, in general.
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
The responsiveness problem is with the industry, who sat on their hands when the application went through, isn't it? Just like the GAC they missed the boat. A learning moment for all.
Indeed. ICANN is so broken that they expect everyone in the world is supposed to pay close attention to everything they do, just in case ICANN should do something stupid that affects them directly. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
the demo looks like it could be a classic worth recording for posterity. Did Clinton give a steer on the administrations view for the future status of IANA? Or was this a private visit to collect chocolates and flash that pearl white smile of his? Christian On 17 Mar 2011, at 16:49, John R. Levine wrote:
The responsiveness problem is with the industry, who sat on their hands when the application went through, isn't it? Just like the GAC they missed the boat. A learning moment for all.
Indeed. ICANN is so broken that they expect everyone in the world is supposed to pay close attention to everything they do, just in case ICANN should do something stupid that affects them directly.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
If you think that .xxx is to be banned then I suggest that there is an argument that could be made for banning something that many consider worse than sexual porn - and that would be images of murder and torture of human beings. Yet consider how that would denude the internet of great works of Christian art or books on the lives of saints.
If you'd bothered to read the article describing the protest, you'd know that it has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone who wants to ban or outlaw porn. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
I've said it before and I'll say it again - if you want to protect children from porn create many .xxx domains. Easy for filters to cope with. regards joe baptista On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 11:02 AM, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
If you think that .xxx is to be banned then I suggest that there is an argument that could be made for banning something that many consider worse than sexual porn - and that would be images of murder and torture of human beings. Yet consider how that would denude the internet of great works of Christian art or books on the lives of saints.
If you'd bothered to read the article describing the protest, you'd know that it has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone who wants to ban or outlaw porn.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On 03/17/2011 08:02 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
If you think that .xxx is to be banned then I suggest that there is an argument that could be made for banning something that many consider worse than sexual porn - and that would be images of murder and torture of human beings. Yet consider how that would denude the internet of great works of Christian art or books on the lives of saints.
If you'd bothered to read the article describing the protest, you'd know that it has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone who wants to ban or outlaw porn.
It has everything to do with it. .pro represented the same idea of corralling "professionals" into a top level domain, presenting the same concern that "professionals" would have to ante up $$ to buy an expensive name in .pro. Of course, .pro, became a total flop because people realized that "professionals" could happily live without a .pro name. (I put "professional" in quotes because .xxx, rather than .pro, might be of use to the worlds oldest professionals.) Similarly TNA people have a choice to not buy a .xxx name; ICANN is not coercing anyone or creating a ghetto - unless the TNA people voluntarily chose to paste the a .xxx patch onto themselves. Nearly every TLD represents an intent to categorize - yet it is only .xxx that is being singled out and characterized as a ghetto or placed for forced buying. And why is that? Because of the concern that .xxx would be a vehicle for censorship or coerced labeling of material that some people would like to censor. It simply is not any of ICANN's concern what kind of material people may chose to represent with a proposed TLD - that way leads to a giant, bloated, and dangerous ICANN. --karl--
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
Nearly every TLD represents an intent to categorize - yet it is only .xxx that is being singled out and characterized as a ghetto or placed for forced buying.
It is said consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. But I've often wondered the kind of intellectual dishonesty which allows some truly decent people to not accept this as past the point of being a 'notion'! Let 'em have their ghetto!!! Carlton
On 2011-03-17, at 2:15 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
Nearly every TLD represents an intent to categorize - yet it is only .xxx that is being singled out and characterized as a ghetto or placed for forced buying.
It is said consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. But I've often wondered the kind of intellectual dishonesty which allows some truly decent people to not accept this as past the point of being a 'notion'!
Let 'em have their ghetto!!!
The .xxx proposal strikes me as nothing more than a cash-grab to milk money out of the adult industry, one playing on the smirky reactions most people have to porn. At a previous job, I had several clients who were in the adult industry and I can say unreservedly that if more marketers approached their craft with the professionalism, and respect to industry practices those people do, I would have quickly been out of a job. But that is an aside. What is wrong with this proposed ghetto is a) that no purchasers of the product will use it and b) to protect their brand integrity and copyright every porn site on the planet will presumably have to fork over hard-won dollars to make sure somebody doesn't usurp their fame and fortune. Yes, I know, this is counterintuitive to my argument that no end-user will use .xxx, but for safety's sake, adult site owenrs will purchase it. Let's say, for the sake of argument, I own welikeballs.com (which I happen to), and I ran an adult site (which I don't happen to do). Would I then be, if not obligated, fairly encouraged from a business point of view to protect my interests by buying, for whatever cost it is, welikeballs.xxx ? You bet. For no other reason than I want to protect it from the other guys over at wedontlikeballs.com who might grab it, and have their way with my good name. As to ghettos, as I understand them, they are generally set up by forcibly pushing people, in one way or another, into them. Unless the rest of the registrar world refuses to sell adult sites a .com/.net et all, this won't be a ghetto so much as a gated community, with no-one actually living in the over-priced homes. I agree with Karl on one point. Protect kids from violence? yes, absolutely. Far more of an issue, in my opinion. -- Neil Schwartzman Executive Director CAUCE The Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email, North America Inc. http://cauce.org http://twitter.com/cauce IM: caucecanada Tel.: +1 (303) 800 6345
On 03/17/2011 11:43 AM, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
The .xxx proposal strikes me as nothing more than a cash-grab to milk money out of <X>
I inserted <X> because pretty much every enterprise - from Google to United Airlines to Pet Rocks to Pets.com is "a cash-grab to milk money out of <X>". If people who are being asked to buy .xxx names do, as they voluntarily may do, not buy names in .xxx then .xxx will fail. Normal economic forces are adequate here; we do not net YARA - Yet Another Regulatory Agency - to be our overlord and master, or our nanny. The authority that people are investing into ICANN to give it the power to refuse .xxx is an authority that is dangerous. ICANN is already a dog being wagged by the intellectual property protection industry, the registry industry (particularly Verisign), government bureaucrats to extend their powers into realms that they do not constitutionally possess, etc. Isn't it time to defang that dog; to turn ICANN from a rabid pit bull, willing to bite anything its masters don't like, into a stuffed fuzzy toy that does exactly one thing - assure the technical stability of the internet domain name system? ICANN's one and only job in the domain name space ought to be to assure that at the root level of DNS that domain name query packets are efficiently, accurately, and reliably turned into domain name reply packets without bias against any query client or query question. --karl--
Neil, Question: Wouldn't what you are saying mean that you don't want any more gTLDs at all? Do you register your site on all gTLDs? If not, then what would be the problem with .xxx? You can choose to register your site on any or all gTLDs that you choose. D Darlene A. Thompson CAP Administrator N-CAP/Department of Education P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 dthompson@gov.nu.ca ________________________________________ From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of Neil Schwartzman [neil@cauce.org] Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 2:43 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Protest at tomorrow's ICANN meeting On 2011-03-17, at 2:15 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
Nearly every TLD represents an intent to categorize - yet it is only .xxx that is being singled out and characterized as a ghetto or placed for forced buying.
It is said consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. But I've often wondered the kind of intellectual dishonesty which allows some truly decent people to not accept this as past the point of being a 'notion'!
Let 'em have their ghetto!!!
The .xxx proposal strikes me as nothing more than a cash-grab to milk money out of the adult industry, one playing on the smirky reactions most people have to porn. At a previous job, I had several clients who were in the adult industry and I can say unreservedly that if more marketers approached their craft with the professionalism, and respect to industry practices those people do, I would have quickly been out of a job. But that is an aside. What is wrong with this proposed ghetto is a) that no purchasers of the product will use it and b) to protect their brand integrity and copyright every porn site on the planet will presumably have to fork over hard-won dollars to make sure somebody doesn't usurp their fame and fortune. Yes, I know, this is counterintuitive to my argument that no end-user will use .xxx, but for safety's sake, adult site owenrs will purchase it. Let's say, for the sake of argument, I own welikeballs.com (which I happen to), and I ran an adult site (which I don't happen to do). Would I then be, if not obligated, fairly encouraged from a business point of view to protect my interests by buying, for whatever cost it is, welikeballs.xxx ? You bet. For no other reason than I want to protect it from the other guys over at wedontlikeballs.com who might grab it, and have their way with my good name. As to ghettos, as I understand them, they are generally set up by forcibly pushing people, in one way or another, into them. Unless the rest of the registrar world refuses to sell adult sites a .com/.net et all, this won't be a ghetto so much as a gated community, with no-one actually living in the over-priced homes. I agree with Karl on one point. Protect kids from violence? yes, absolutely. Far more of an issue, in my opinion. -- Neil Schwartzman Executive Director CAUCE The Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email, North America Inc. http://cauce.org http://twitter.com/cauce IM: caucecanada Tel.: +1 (303) 800 6345 _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On 17 March 2011 11:43, Neil Schwartzman <neil@cauce.org> wrote:
The .xxx proposal strikes me as nothing more than a cash-grab to milk money out of the adult industry, one playing on the smirky reactions most people have to porn.
And the adult industry, as the FSC has already indicated, has the option to avoid .xxx -- either individually or collectively (ie, boycott). I fully support this option. If .xxx has no value (let alone if it is actively disliked) then the industry is within its rights to avoid .xxx. There is the claim that there are thousands of pre-registered would-be .xxx domains, and the counter argument that these have been mainly reserved by speculators and defensive registrations. If the industry wants to kill .xxx then it need do nothing more than avoid this TLD. Central to the fear of .xxx is the belief that the industry will be forced by law to use it and subsequently be more easily bloockable as a group. I have no reason to believe that such a ghetto fear is justified, or that such a regulation would be easily worked around. Anti-infringement rules would allow existing adult brands to protect their names without needing to make defensive registrations.
What is wrong with this proposed ghetto is a) that no purchasers of the product will use it
Why does that make the application wrong (let alone suitable for rejection)? Approval of a TLD is not a license for riches; just ask the operators of .aero, .pro or .mobi I see no reason to believe that .xxx is an assumed commercial success. If demand doesn't exist -- if the industry indeed does not want it, then it will fail. Then the industry gets what it wants -- a failed TLD -- without putting ICANN in the position of making content-related TLD judgments.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, I own welikeballs.com (which I happen to), and I ran an adult site (which I don't happen to do). Would I then be, if not obligated, fairly encouraged from a business point of view to protect my interests by buying, for whatever cost it is, welikeballs.xxx ? You bet.
Don't agree. If you have a legitimate use of the brand, you can issue a UDRP claim and get any future .xxx implementation removed without having to pay to get it yourself.
As to ghettos, as I understand them, they are generally set up by forcibly pushing people, in one way or another, into them. Unless the rest of the registrar world refuses to sell adult sites a .com/.net et all, this won't be a ghetto so much as a gated community, with no-one actually living in the over-priced homes.
The entire registrar world refusing to legally sell adult sites into .com would (and should) surely run afoul of anti-trust.
I agree with Karl on one point. Protect kids from violence? yes, absolutely. Far more of an issue, in my opinion.
I vehemently object to governments or agencies telling me how to protect my children -- let alone trying to protect them in my stead -- so long as I am not judged an unfit parent. In my own experience, claims by anyone trying to protect my children usually hide attempts inflict their own vision of "harm" onto others -- adults *and* children. -- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
I see no reason to believe that .xxx is an assumed commercial success. If demand doesn't exist -- if the industry indeed does not want it, then it will fail. Then the industry gets what it wants -- a failed TLD -- without putting ICANN in the position of making content-related TLD judgments.
Part of the application process for a sTLD is to show that it is supported by the community it intends to serve. Looking at the history of every sTLD, I think we can fairly say that whatever process ICANN used to verify the alleged support was completely incompetent. So the right thing to do would be to say, "oh, sorry, you actually never qualified for an sTLD, here's your money back and an extra million that you'd otherwise get more expensively by suing us." Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
So the right thing to do would be to say, "oh, sorry, you actually never qualified for an sTLD, here's your money back and an extra million that you'd otherwise get more expensively by suing us."
Well the fact is they did qualify, and there was a lengthy investigatory finding that confirms that. ICANN has to respect its own processes or it's a joke. One can criticize the process, work to do better in future, but that doesn't invalidate it. ICANN should just let it go through and move on. IMHO j -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
Well the fact is they did qualify, and there was a lengthy investigatory finding that confirms that.
You're confusing ICANN's process with reality. The process purported to confirm that the porn industry supports .XXX. In reality, there are pornographers picketing the ICANN meeting because they so very much do not.
ICANN has to respect its own processes or it's a joke.
One can criticize the process, work to do better in future, but that doesn't invalidate it. ICANN should just let it go through and move on.
The process is 100% completely broken. A process that broken needs to stop. I used to think that ICANN should shrug, approve .XXX, and go on. Now I think that the best thing we can do for the good of the Internet is to throw sand in the gears wherever possible, since the less ICANN does, the better. This specifically includes all of the new TLDs that (despite what they claim) nobody but their promoters want. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
On 17 March 2011 15:47, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
I see no reason to believe that .xxx is an assumed commercial success. If demand doesn't exist -- if the industry indeed does not want it, then it will fail. Then the industry gets what it wants -- a failed TLD -- without putting ICANN in the position of making content-related TLD judgments.
Part of the application process for a sTLD is to show that it is supported by the community it intends to serve. Looking at the history of every sTLD, I think we can fairly say that whatever process ICANN used to verify the alleged support was completely incompetent.
For better or worse, the applicant demonstrated sufficient sponsorship to ICANN's satisfaction. That FSC demonstrates that THEIR community doesn't buy in, doesn't necessarily negate the validity of the claim. Even the existence of a supportive sponsoring community does not guarantee success. (see ".aero") - Evan
For better or worse, the applicant demonstrated sufficient sponsorship to ICANN's satisfaction. That FSC demonstrates that THEIR community doesn't buy in, doesn't necessarily negate the validity of the claim. Even the existence of a supportive sponsoring community does not guarantee success. (see ".aero")
As I said, ICANN's process is broken. In every case, the community that was allegedly supporting the gTLDs has voted with their feet and stayed away in droves, so the "support" does not in fact exist. Look at .AERO and .TRAVEL and .PRO and .JOBS and .COOP and poor old .MUSEUM. People hold up .CAT as a success, but Catalonia has about 7 million people, and .CAT has about 47,000 registrations. That's about the same population as Switzerland (about a million domains in .CH) or Hongkong (about 200,000 in .HK.) I presume we all know Einstein's quote about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
It simply is not any of ICANN's concern what kind of material people may chose to represent with a proposed TLD - that way leads to a giant, bloated, and dangerous ICANN.
It does show that the best thing to do would be to forget about new TLDs, since the track record is abundantly clear that the alleged beneficiaries (not just in .XXX) uniformly don't want them. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
My god, what a stick-in-the-mud! As was pointed out above, if the communities don't want them they will likely fail. There are plenty of communities that are chomping at the bit. As the number of tld's increases there will come a certain theshold when they'll become arbitrary, anyway. j On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 2:44 PM, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
It simply is not any of ICANN's concern what kind of material people may chose to represent with a proposed TLD - that way leads to a giant, bloated, and dangerous ICANN.
It does show that the best thing to do would be to forget about new TLDs, since the track record is abundantly clear that the alleged beneficiaries (not just in .XXX) uniformly don't want them.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
A Big +1 to Karl's. ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 2:02 AM, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
On 03/16/2011 10:31 PM, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
I hope some who are in attendance will also check out this protest. I think this articulates a widespread frustration with ICANN's responsiveness, in general.
I very much disagree.
ICANN is not the world's sex monitor. Or to use stronger words, ICANN is not the world's censor of the internet nor is ICANN a tool for would-be censors.
(Similarly, ICANN ought not be a trademark monitor.)
ICANN does not force anyone to use or not use any particular part of the domain name system. ICANN is not a creator of internet ghettos - except for human lemmings who fail to see that they possess the power of choice.
The reason that ICANN has become more bloated than Jabba the Hutt is that ICANN rarely says "that is not our job".
But with .xxx ICANN has, for once, done the right thing.
Whether .xxx is used by people who like the Roman numerals for 30, or by people who like images of the three crosses on Calvary, or by purveyors of TNA is simply not of ICANN's concern.
If you think that .xxx is to be banned then I suggest that there is an argument that could be made for banning something that many consider worse than sexual porn - and that would be images of murder and torture of human beings. Yet consider how that would denude the internet of great works of Christian art or books on the lives of saints.
--karl--
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On 2011-03-17, at 2:02 AM, Karl Auerbach wrote:
The reason that ICANN has become more bloated than Jabba the Hutt is that ICANN rarely says "that is not our job".
With one major exception, of course. Security. And fraudulent spammers and mobilephone slammers getting to be registrars. http://www.icann.org/en/transparency/krebs-response-22dec08-en.pdf Take a look at that document, and poke around for Dynamic Dolphin, owned by infamous net-abuse Scott Richter, his father Steve, and apparently, a former directi employee, who signed off on it while she was there, Manisha Mani. In which case, they adopt the more unionized view of 'it's not my job'. "Response to Documentary Information Disclosure Policy Request To: Mr. Brian Krebs Date: 22 December 2008 Re: Request No. 20081121-1 __________________________________________________________________ Thank you for your Request for Information dated 21 November 2008, which we understand was submitted pursuant to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers’ (ICANN) Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP). For reference, attached to this letter is a copy of your request. There is no information responsive to your request as there is no listing of officers on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). We can inform you, however, that Manisha Mani signed the RAA with Dynamic Dolphin, Inc. as the CEO, and was the only officer listed on the registrar accreditation application. We hope this information is helpful. If you have any further inquiries, please forward them to didp@icann.org." -- Neil Schwartzman Executive Director CAUCE The Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email, North America Inc. http://cauce.org http://twitter.com/cauce IM: caucecanada Tel.: +1 (303) 800 6345
participants (9)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Christian de Larrinaga -
Evan Leibovitch -
Joe Baptista -
John R. Levine -
Joly MacFie -
Karl Auerbach -
Neil Schwartzman -
Thompson, Darlene