Michael and all,
Yes indeed we [INEGroup] reviewed the now Accreditation policy
set by the ICANN Interim Board in great detail as well as had a legal
review done. The conclusion's were posted to the ICANN relevant
E-Mail depositories, and seemingly went unread or unheeded as they
ICANN decided to unilaterally determine that those then called
"Guidelines", were sufficient. Our conclusion as seemingly the
conclusion of the EU as well as quite a number of internet groups
all over the globe found that the ICANN Interim Boards decision
made in Singapore were faulty in the extreme.
What is puzzling to me and to many within the [INEGRoup] was
the lack of the proper review from the USG and in particular the NTIA.
Michael Sondow wrote:
> Roeland M.J. Meyer a �crit:
> >
> > That's one hell of an allegation there, Michael. URL if you please.
>
> http://www.icann.org/registrar_agreement.html
>
> ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Policy does not mention a single
> right of a domain name registrant, only rights of registrars,
> registries, and ICANN. It treats domain name registrants, the users
> of the Internet and the creators of e-commerce and the new wealth in
> the U.S., as objects to be exploited, or as criminals.
>
> Section I of the Accreditation Agreement ("Definitions"), while
> carefully defining "registry", "registrar", "registry
> administrator", "ICANN", "NSI", et cetera, includes no definition or
> term or even a mention of the registrant or domain name holder.
>
> SECTION III.F. ("Rights in Data") says: "The registrar shall be
> permitted to claim rights in the data elements III.C.1.d and e and
> III.D.1.d through j concerning active SLD registrations sponsored by
> it in the registry for the .com, .net, and .org TLDs...".
>
> Data element D.1.f is "The name and postal address of the SLD
> holder". How can ICANN give a registrar rights in a registrant's
> name and address? This gives the registrar, or ICANN, the right to
> use the registrant's name and address as they see fit. What will
> they do with this "data"? Who will they sell it to?
>
> SECTION III.J. ("Business Dealings, Including with SLD Holders")
> subsection 5 says: "Registrar shall register SLDs to SLD holders
> only for fixed periods. At the conclusion of the registration
> period, failure to pay a renewal fee within the time specified in a
> second notice or reminder shall result in cancellation of the
> registration."
>
> Defining registrations as being for only fixed periods makes them so
> precarious that no individual or company with small resources could
> afford to take the risk of investing in them. This provision alone
> could destroy free enterprise on the Internet. Registrations should
> be for indeterminate periods, at the discretion of the registrant.
> Isn't the DNS at the service of the registrant? This provision
> should read: "Registrations of SLDs will be for indeterminate
> periods of time and cancellation of the registration shall be at the
> discretion of the SLD holder, except in such cases where the
> registrant does not pay the applicable fees in a timely manner or
> when the SLD has been removed from the registrant by a decision of a
> competent legal authority."
>
> SECTION III.J.7.g says: "The SLD holder shall represent that, to the
> best of the SLD holder's knowledge and belief, neither the
> registration of the SLD name nor the manner in which it is directly
> or indirectly used infringes the legal rights of a third party."
>
> How can this be complied with, unless the registrant spends tens of
> thousands of dollars searching the world's trademark databases and
> the records of all company names registered throughout the world, an
> impossible task. And why should it be? What justification can there
> be for requiring a registrant to do this, which should be the work
> of a party that attacks the registrant's use of and right to the
> name, not of the registrant?
>
> SECTION III.J.7.i says: "The SLD holder shall agree that its
> registration of the SLD name shall be subject to suspension,
> cancellation, or transfer by any ICANN procedure, or by any
> registrar or registry administrator procedure approved by ICANN, (1)
> to correct mistakes by Registrar or the registry administrator in
> registering the name or (2) for the resolution of disputes
> concerning the SLD name."
> What possible justification is there for revoking a domain name
> because a registry or registrar made a mistake, that is, penalizing
> the registrant for an error made by the registrar or registry? Will
> the registrant be subject to cancellation of the domain name as a
> means of resolving a dispute? Cancellation can only be a penalty
> imposed by a competent legal authority, not a means of resolving
> disputes. This is the NSI policy all over again, only worse because
> it's made an obligation of registrars under threat of
> de-accreditation.
>
> SECTION III.K. ("Domain Name Dispute Resolution") says: "During the
> term of this Agreement, Registrar shall have in place a policy and
> procedure for resolution of disputes concerning SLD names."
>
> What policy or procedure will the registrar have in place? Any one
> that the registrar chooses, undefined by ICANN or by a legal
> authority, and to which the registrant will be required to submit
> without the registrant's input or consultation? There is no
> arbitration procedure in the world, save perhaps in a dictatorship,
> that is the work of only one side in a dispute. What about disputes
> arising from abuse of the domain name holder's rights by the
> registrar or the registry, such as for example the misuse of the
> holder's personal information, or undue interruption in service of
> the holder's domain name?
>
> Where are the provisions for protection of the registrant's rights,
> the rights of the users, of the consumers?
>
>
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
