Pre-registration statement and ALAC - update
Evan, Thank you for your summary of the discussion of contracted parties offering some form of rights to domain names under the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreements, and the still draft ICANN Registry Agreement, for some gTLDs which may exist as early as 2013. You point out the following: o if money is not exchanged until a condition is met, that such offers are not consumer fraud, false advertizing, etc. It could be useful to know if this view is informed by competent legal advice, and for which jurisdictions this view is supported by competent legal advice. The broader point I suspect is that while two thirds of all registrars are domiciled in North American region, and less than 1% of all registrars are domiciled in two of the five regions, the decision making structure of the RALOs, as a group, ensures that the view of the regions with less than 9 registrars between them can prevent the publication of bylaws advice reflecting a common policy which views fictive offers as contrary to the public interest. With that I think we're done, as far as a uniform all-RALO statement on a policy issue. Eric
You point out the following:
o if money is not exchanged until a condition is met, that such offers are not consumer fraud, false advertizing, etc.
It could be useful to know if this view is informed by competent legal advice, and for which jurisdictions this view is supported by competent legal advice.
I work with law enforcement in a variety of countries dealing with online crime, and I can confirm that they are vastly less interested if the victim has no financial loss. Arguments about opportunity costs due to being misled aren't persuasive. So I agree that it's sleazy, but it rates fairly low on the big list of things to be outraged about. 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 I agree that it's sleazy, but it rates fairly low on the big list of things to be outraged about.
At the same time, it's relatively cheap and easy to provide a decent level of consumer protection. If ICANN published a statement on pre-registrations and required any registrar that was going to do pre-registration to link to it, that would go a long way towards removing some of the sleaze. Bret
On 26 Aug 2011, at 17:47, John R. Levine wrote:
You point out the following:
o if money is not exchanged until a condition is met, that such offers are not consumer fraud, false advertizing, etc.
It could be useful to know if this view is informed by competent legal advice, and for which jurisdictions this view is supported by competent legal advice.
I work with law enforcement in a variety of countries dealing with online crime, and I can confirm that they are vastly less interested if the victim has no financial loss. Arguments about opportunity costs due to being misled aren't persuasive.
So I agree that it's sleazy, but it rates fairly low on the big list of things to be outraged about.
John I'd agree with your sentiments, however, while it may not be as big an issue as phishing fraud or other criminal activity, is it necessarily wrong to condemn it? Or if "condemnation" is the wrong line to take, then maybe it's a good opportunity to educate people about the new TLD program and its realities. Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.mobi/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
participants (4)
-
Bret Fausett -
ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net -
John R. Levine -
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight