new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play

Dean Robb Dean at PC-Easy-va.com
Wed Mar 7 23:00:55 UTC 2001


At 03:26 PM 3/6/2001, you wrote:

>Awhile back, somebody made a similar accusation.  So, I spent the
>better part of a weekend reviewing a selection of UDRP decisions.
>Quite frankly, I didn't find a single one that seemed badly reasoned.

Quite a number listed on the mailing list for Domain-Policy; archives at 
http://lists.netsol.com/archives/domain-policy.html .  Everything from 
decisions that failure to offer to sell the domain is proof of bad faith to 
decisions where offerring to sell is proof of bad faith; Cities are not 
entitled to domains with their names; etc. etc.  Far too many to list here...

> > paying a non-refundable 50k fee in a
>
>The fee was always (and I'm going back to IETF, IAHC, and various
>other discussions) expected to be non-refundable.  Pay as you go.
>Nobody else pays for your cost to operate.  Very libertarian.

And fine, as far as it goes in theory.  But the fee was considered fairly 
steep to begin with (since it's basically thrown away money) and the 
losers' money is being used to fund the winner's TLDs and other 
operations.  Far from an option or performance bond, this appears to be a 
simple "We need money, so we're going to extort it from you" plan.

>Apparently, you've never optioned property....  Or supplied a
>performance bond.

One doesn't pay the property's full price for the option nor lose the bond 
if they perform.  This was high-stakes poker with a $50k ante.  There 
*appear* to have been...improprieties...in the decision-making process, 
hence the outcry.  If you lose fairly, well..suck it up.  If, however, the 
deck appears to have been stacked...

> > completely arbitrary and capricious process,
>
>Really?  In the legal sense?  What proof do you offer?

Recommend you join domain-policy at lists.netsol.com where we discuss these 
matters more fully.  It's not really NANOG material (at this point, anyway).

The public participation around the world has far outstripped anything
>I'd ever expected.  On that basis alone, it's a success.

You *MUST* be joking.  Participation like becoming at At-Large member so 
that I could enjoy the benefits of membership...um, I mean, be allowed to 
vote one time for a member?  Participation like people not being allowed to 
attend "public" meetings?  Or not being allowed to speak even at the 
"public" meetings?  Participation as in public comment on the Verisign deal?

>Yes, I wish that things were moving faster.  I wish that the fully
>envisioned board had been selected.  I wish that there was more
>sunshine.  But, I realise that not every citizen on the planet has
>the same adversarial bent in their civilization, and that some even
>consider collegial closed meetings more civilized!

More civilized?  Perhaps.  Contrary to democratic principles?  Certainly.

Really...you simply MUST join us on Domain-Policy to discuss this issue in 
more depth...

Dean Robb
www.PC-Easy-va.com
On-site computer services
Member, ICANN At Large





More information about the NANOG mailing list