On 6/13/13 9:11 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:

Perhaps our city and its residents, and especially its registrants, would benefit from a requirement that .nyc TLD registrars are required to be located in New York City.

can't happen. equal access provision _and_ the application submitted by the doitt contractor was for a type other than "community-based", and therefore cannot provide provisions which supersede the general terms. -e p.s., again, imo, not an advice to board issue, though there may be a comment to compliance issue.

Alan, Tom's speculation concerned a property of registrars, the physical nexus between the registrars and the City of New York, and the conditions community-based registries may propose in support of their claim to have a restrictive registration policy may manifest in some conditions on registrars, e.g., be capable of title search in one or all of the Five Boroughs or grants of business licenses, again, in one or all of the Five Boroughs, or capable of in-person registration, again, in one or all of the Five Boroughs reducing the registrars for, e.g., .nyc, to those with a physical presence in one of the five boroughs. It was in CORE's response to the DOITT for .nyc. I wrote it. Your observation was to revisit .pro's initial claim, which limited registrants by some property other than physical nexus. Let me know when you find a restriction on registrars. Offlist? Eric

Indeed, many applicants are promising many things. But, even on paper, they have no more authority and trustworthiness than any politician's election-time pledges. This is application time. Especially under contention, some applicants are fighting to see whose entry can be made most noble. But, under the current process, there is no obligation for them to keep these promises the day after delegation. The current enforceability of "Public Interest Commitments" being offered by some applications is very much subject to ongoing speculation due to their ambiguity and afterthought-type introduction into the application process, not to mention the lack of a well-thought-out enforcement regime. (I believe the original enforcement method trotted out would force parties who were "wronged" by breach of a PIC to complain -- AT THEIR EXPENSE -- to a third-party UDRP-type resolution provider. Insanity!!) For a precedent that responds to Alan's comment about "professional" TLDs, we need look no further than their immediate ancestor, ".pro" -- which abandoned its credentialling requirements under financial stress (with ZERO negative consequences from ICANN). But that wasn't the first registry to take its TLD beyond its original intended purpose. The .NET TLD was not originally designed as a place for online casinos. Amd arguably, PIR would not need to apply for ".NGO" had .org been maintained for the purposes under which it was originally created. So we have precedents of TLDs that promised a valuable exclusivity but -- faced with economic stress -- threw the doors open without consequence. And in the next round we really don't have any effective prevention against more to come. - Evan On 13 June 2013 21:58, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

Eric, on what do you base this? There are many new TLDs that plan to have very specific and restrictive requirements that must be met by applicants. Example, some of the .health applicants that will limit registrants to licensed professionals. Same goes for many of the "professional" designation TLDs.

Alan

Just a matter of time before this becomes a bigger issue.    

________________________________ From: Dharma Dailey <dharma@ethoswireless.com> To: joly@punkcast.com Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain hijacking story

Whoah!

On Jun 13, 2013, at 3:58 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:

...

"There are no specific laws regarding domain hijacking, nor any law that specifically holds the domain name registrar responsible for allowing the registrant information to be modified without the permission of the original registrant. "

http://windowssecrets.com/forums/showthread.php/154322-Domain-stolen-while-h...

-- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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/ -------------------------------------------------------------- - ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org/ ------

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org/ ------

I don't get it. Can you explain Eric? -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 2:28 PM To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain hijacking story On 6/13/13 4:18 PM, RJ Glass wrote:

Just a matter of time before this becomes a bigger issue.

Personally, I don't think so. The complaint originates in the control of a label which is not used, it is not associated with critical infrastructure like a public mail relay or a public publisher ... it is ... well ... nothing ... The purchase of an acre of the moon or the right to name a star is less ephemeral. Eric ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------ ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3199/6408 - Release Date: 06/13/13