Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1109
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, March 28 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1109

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 03:00:32 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF

>
> False. As a Registrant, I provided feedback to the Registrars through Ross
> Radar over a period of time before this final paper was published, and in
> particular objected to the proposed clause relating to the Registrar's
> ability to conduct a bankruptcy search on the Registrant, that allows the
> Registrar to deny a transfer for this reason, notwithstanding that the
> Registrars have no clue how to conduct a bankruptcy search in every nation
> on the globe. Furthermore, not one single person in the community has ever
> stated any useful purpose for this clause. This is a matter of invasion of
> privacy that I doubt any Registrant would voluntarily agree, yet is being
> completely overlooked by the Registrars.
>
> Secondly, I made stringent efforts to be included on this task force as a
> Registrant representative, mindful to ensure the Registrant community was
> included in deliberations, but was thrown off (literally) by Marilyn Cade,
> who silenced my voice by denying my posting privileges. Some time later, a
> GA Representative was appointed, since when there has been no work done.
>
> These are the facts.
>

How quickly history becomes distorted.

The conversation that we had did indeed center on the registrars capability
to deny a transfer based on a registrant "pending bankruptcy". No such
conversation occurred concerning anything remotely related to a registrar
doing bankruptcy searches on anyone - in fact, no such power is granted to
Registrars in any contract related to ICANN that I'm aware of. Further,
these conversations occurred in the context of preparation of the best
practices document and not the TF. Each comment received on the RC Transfers
BP doc were taken into account and included where appropriate.

Second, I believe that your participation as a registrant representative was
not permitted simply because you do not represent registrants. Once a GA
representative was identified that was willing to represent the interests of
the GA, they were appointed without any delay whatsoever.

- -rwr

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:27:38 +0100 (CET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: anyone notice fallout from this?

Until now I haven't contacted the RegistryPro (ICANN.PRO) people. I had to wait till the contracts were signed. O.K. now it would be time to do that...and I will do that the next weeks.
But I think RegistryPro would not be amused. :-) I doubt that they want to advertise another .pro. And they would have to explain why there is another .pro. This would be news for most of the Internet users that there are roots "beside" ICANN. I think they will decide not to open pandoras box.
But I think some "small but fine" registrars (with educated customers or customers who want to be educated) could be interested and could offer this as premium service (100% visibility and security).
If no one is interested and the Inclusive Roots would still support  name.spaces .pro instead of ICANNs .pro I would still get likely huge traffic, if it is true that 5-10% uses Inclusive Roots. Maybe I could support this assertion or not.

I know there are some registrar mailing lists...but don't know the URIs to join them to make a proposel.
Any advice?

Simon

> Did you contact the ICANN.PRO people and proposed them an alliance? You 
> could multiply sales.  I suppose you have more active non controverted 
> sites in the Open side than in the Legacy side from what they report. This 
> could help both of you. It would make more sense to advertize for: 'Two pro 
> for the price of one' than '.info+.pro for the price of one'.
> I suggest the Open .info people to do the same as you do with .uk.info, 
> .us.info etc... and to propose to the GAC. Far better when Open and Legacy 
> Roots can join forces.
> jfc
> On 11:03 27/03/02, [email-masked] said:
> >It is pure information which maybe looks like spam to you ;-)
> >
> >John wrote about ICANN's introduction of colliding top level domains, 
> >especially about the .BIZ collider.
> >And I wrote that this cannnot happen in the .PRO name space.
> >RegistryPro introduces .med.pro , .law.pro and .cpa.pro later this year. 
> >But the .PRO TLD already exists in the Inclusive Namespace roots (ORSC, 
> >Pacific Root,...). This would mean colliding domain names!
> >
> >But there is a solution: Someone was so wise :-) to reserve exactly the 
> >same domain names (.law.pro, .med.pro, .cpa.pro) in the (registry 
> >reserved! ;-)).
> >
> >This has following benefits:
> >ICANN people always talk about Stability of the Internet and about 
> >Security. Now you can have it!
> >1. .PRO is a 'non-colliding' TLD unlike .info and .biz
> >2. Professionals could register IDENTICAL domain names in the 'legacy 
> >root' and in the Inclusive Namespace root. Therefore users could get the 
> >same information whether they surf the 'legacy root' or the Inclusive 
> >Namespace roots.
> >3. Because IDENTICAL sites with domain names registered in two registries 
> >exist in the 'legacy root' and in the 'Inclusive Namespace roots' there 
> >could be a complete data loss in one registry. Moreover one root network 
> >could go down completely. The domain name and the website would still be 
> >fully functional in the other root network!
> >That's the benefit of redundancy.
> >ICANN TALKS about Stability and Security of the Internet, others take action.
> >4. Security issues are paramont in the .PRO name space, it would be used 
> >by professionals like lawyers or accountants. If professionals would only 
> >register their domain name with RegistryPro the possibility that e-mails 
> >would reach their corresponding e-mail addrsss is approx. 95%. And you 
> >know these e-mails would very likely contain confidential information.
> >Therefore a 100% solution is needed. If professionals would register their 
> >domain name with both registries they could make sure that NO e-mail 
> >message would get lost.
> >
> >
> >This was 100% information.
> >Maybe it is a problem for you William and Eric that I don't write about 
> >the solutions and actions of a third party or person.
> >If this would come from a third party/person this wouldn't be spam, right? ;-
> )
> >
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Simon
> >
> >http://nic.pro.xs2.net
> >nic.PRO - the original .PRO third level domain registry!
> >
> >
> >
> > > Yes that is pretty close to spam.  One could certainly make a case for it.
> > > Eric
> > > William X Walsh wrote:
> > > > Spam spam spam.
> > > >
> > > > Please keep it off the [email-masked] list.
> > > >
> > > > Tuesday, Tuesday, March 26, 2002, 3:47:48 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In the dotPRO namespace there will be no colliders if all Registrants
> > > register with http://nic.pro.xs2.net in addition!
> > > >
> > > > > Isn't that a great news!?
> > > >
> > > > > nic.PRO is supported by:
> > > > > - Common Interest Network Information Center Society
> > > > > - Name.Space
> > > > > - Open Root Server Confederation
> > > > > - The PacificRoot
> > > >
> > > > > check here for details:
> > > > > http://root-dns.org/VueDig/VueDig_tld.php?tld=nic.pro&record=NS
> > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Simon
> > > >
> > > > > http://nic.pro.xs2.net
> > > > > nic.PRO - the original .PRO third level domain registry!
> > > >
> > > > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > > > >> From: 'John R. LoVerso' <[email-masked]>
> > > > >> To: <[email-masked]>
> > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 3:26 PM
> > > > >> Subject: anyone notice fallout from this?
> > > > >> > ------- Start of forwarded message -------
> > > > >> > This document describes the 'Root Fix for the .US Top Level 
> > Domain'.
> > > Root
> > > > >> > Fix is a series of actions taken by the Open Root Server 
> > Confederation
> > > > >> > (ORSC) to prevent the destabilization of the DNS due to ICANN's
> > > > >> > introduction of colliding top level domains.  This document 
> > describes
> > > the
> > > > >> > actions taken bythe ORSC to remedy the collateral damage that 
> > has been
> > > > >> > directly caused to the .US top level domain in non-ICANN root 
> > systems.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-higgs-schneiders-root-fix-
> > > us-00.tx
> > > > >> t
> > > > >> > ------- End of forwarded message -------
> > > > >> Lets get something straight.
> > > > >> 1. ORSC and Inclusive Namespace roots did not cause this problem, 
> > Neustar
> > > > >> did
> > > > >> by deliberatly moving the .US nameservers under BIZ.
> > > > >> 2. ICANN's versionof .BIZ is the collider.
> > > > >> No damage has been done that hasn't already been fixed.
> > > > >> John
> > > > >> ---
> > > > >> AGN Domain Name Services
> > > > >> http://www.adns.net
> > > > >> Censorship-Free GA list: http://dns-o.org/listinfo/ga
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > > >> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > > >> ('unsubscribe ga' in the body of the message).
> > > > >> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > > > ('unsubscribe ga-full' in the body of the message).
> > > > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> > > > --
> > > > Save Internet Radio!
> > > > CARP will kill Webcasting!
> > > > http://www.saveinternetradio.org/
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > > ('unsubscribe ga' in the body of the message).
> > > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >--
> >This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> >Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> >('unsubscribe ga' in the body of the message).
> >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ('unsubscribe ga' in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 06:12:11 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  Abusing Consensus in the Transfers TF

Ross, 

the vote that the registrars conducted on the Transfers document was 1 
Abstention, 4 Disapproved, 35 Approved, and 117 didn't bother to vote.   You 
might call that consensus; I don't... I call it just another vote.   It was 
apparent to most that the document was an incomplete piece of work -- it 
failed to define the role of the reseller/ISP acting as an agent on behalf of 
the registrant, and it clearly did not define "apparent authority".  If 
anything, the consensus conclusion was that 3/4 of your constituency 
considered the document prematurely tabled, incomplete, and not ready to be 
voted upon.  
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 06:44:51 -0500
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF

Ok, since both Ross and Joanna are talking about 'me', I figure it's time to
weigh in.
I am the person the GA selected to be Transfer TF representative. And I have
been working on the TF ever since, including attending teleconferences at
different hours, reviewing documents and most important, working on a
questionnaire to gather needed input to the process as per the charter.

First, if I were thin-skinned, I would probably take offence at Joanna's
contention that there has been no work done since I was elected TF
representative.  There has been both visible process (documents submitted and
revised, etc.)  that anyone can view on the mailing list archives and
teleconferences (at least one of which GA members were invited to attend in on
but no one did).

Second, if issues relating to bankrupty are going to be publically discussed at
all, I would suggest that bankruptcy specialists from the relevant jurisdictions
be called in to provide at least an overview of the applicable issues. FYI,
every jurisdiction that I know of (and I know so little about bankruptcy that I
refuse to even play a bankruptcy specialist on TV) has laws that look at (and in
some cases rolll back)  financial transactions of people as they sink to prevent
siphoning off assets that might otherwise be divided among creditors.

"Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:

> >
> > False. As a Registrant, I provided feedback to the Registrars through Ross
> > Radar over a period of time before this final paper was published, and in
> > particular objected to the proposed clause relating to the Registrar's
> > ability to conduct a bankruptcy search on the Registrant, that allows the
> > Registrar to deny a transfer for this reason, notwithstanding that the
> > Registrars have no clue how to conduct a bankruptcy search in every nation
> > on the globe. Furthermore, not one single person in the community has ever
> > stated any useful purpose for this clause. This is a matter of invasion of
> > privacy that I doubt any Registrant would voluntarily agree, yet is being
> > completely overlooked by the Registrars.
> >
> > Secondly, I made stringent efforts to be included on this task force as a
> > Registrant representative, mindful to ensure the Registrant community was
> > included in deliberations, but was thrown off (literally) by Marilyn Cade,
> > who silenced my voice by denying my posting privileges. Some time later, a
> > GA Representative was appointed, since when there has been no work done.
> >
> > These are the facts.
> >
>
> How quickly history becomes distorted.
>
> The conversation that we had did indeed center on the registrars capability
> to deny a transfer based on a registrant "pending bankruptcy". No such
> conversation occurred concerning anything remotely related to a registrar
> doing bankruptcy searches on anyone - in fact, no such power is granted to
> Registrars in any contract related to ICANN that I'm aware of. Further,
> these conversations occurred in the context of preparation of the best
> practices document and not the TF. Each comment received on the RC Transfers
> BP doc were taken into account and included where appropriate.
>
> Second, I believe that your participation as a registrant representative was
> not permitted simply because you do not represent registrants. Once a GA
> representative was identified that was willing to represent the interests of
> the GA, they were appointed without any delay whatsoever.
>
> -rwr
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:19:07 +0100
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf minutes 22 March 2002

[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]

DNSO Names Council Teleconference 22nd March 2002 -
minutes --------------------------------------------------------------------
- ------------
25 March 2002.

Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020322.NCteleconf-agenda.html

List of attendees:

Peter de Blanc         ccTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Oscar Robles or
Elisabeth Porteneuve
Elisabeth Porteneuve   ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay     ccTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Peter de Blanc or
Elisabeth Porteneuve

Philip Sheppard        Business
Marilyn Cade           Business
Grant Forsyth          Business

Greg Ruth              ISPCP  absent, apologies
Antonio Harris         ISPCP
Tony Holmes            ISPCP

Philipp Grabensee      Registrars absent, apologies
Ken Stubbs             Registrars
Bruce Tonkin           Registrars

Roger Cochetti         gTLD
Richard Tindal         gTLD  absent, apologies, proxy given to R.Cochetti
Cary Karp              gTLD  absent, apologies,
Ellen Shankman         IP
Laurence Djolakian     IP
J. Scott Evans         IP

Harold Feld            NCDNH
Chun Eung Hwi          NCDNH
Erick Iriate           NCDNH

14 Names Council Members

Jeff Neuman            invited to represent gTLDs in the absence of NC
members
Rita Rodin             invited to represent gTLDs in the absence of NC
members
Thomas Roessler        invited as GA Chair

Glen de Saint Géry     NC Secretary
Philippe Renaut        MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat

Due to a technical failure there was no MP3 recording

Quorum present at 15:10 (all times reported are CET, which is UTC +1:00
during the winter in the Northern hemisphere).

Philip Sheppard chaired this NC teleconference.

Approval of the Agenda

Approved.
Philip Sheppard said that the purpose of the meeting was a discussion but
that a vote might be needed to pass revisions to the Terms of Reference.

Agenda item 1. Agreement to revised Terms of Reference for DNSO response to
the case for Reform
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.NC-tor-DNSO-response-ICANN-reform.v3.htm
,

Suggested amendments on line that had been proposed for adoption by the
Chair prior to the meeting and circulated as version3:
Tony Holmes: Under section 2 Advisory Bodies, there should be a separation
of DNSO, ASO, and PSO.
Chun: Explicit mention of At-Large in the sub-title to section 5 (Board
composition). In addition it was agreed in the meeting to add At-large as a
bullet point under section 4 (Stakeholder participation).

The structure of the report was discussed and it was agreed that:
The report should list:

Common points of agreement
Individual Constituency opinion (where it differs).
Consensus input from GA
The frame work for the report should be:

Functions of ICANN, guiding principles of those functions.
Structure the report by subject area (see below)
Response to Lynn analysis and proposed solution
Alternative solutions
GA: Ken Stubbs: Important for the GA to give an idea of what their
propositions will be.
Thomas Roessler: Proposes to summarise the thinking and debates going on in
the GA. In turn he will comment on what has been said during NC the
discussions.

Ph. Sheppard proposed:
To accept the terms of reference as amended and agree that those terms of
reference specify the format of a DNSO report which will present
recommendations to the Board.
Ellen Shankman seconded.

Proposed motion passed unanimously by the NC members present.

Decision 1: Amended terms of Reference were adopted.

Agenda item 2. Discussion on functions and principles of ICANN.

Ph. Sheppard introduced the subject by saying that three questions
circulated in advance were based on work already done which can be found in
Stuart Lynn's statement on 10 March describing ICANN's functions in the
Mission Statement.

Q. 1. Do we agree with this posted list of ICANN's functions?

Oscar Robles had answered on line the question : "Do we agree with the
posted list of ICANN's functions?". He agreed in broad terms with the list
as a recollection of tasks ICANN conduct in a day to day basis, but not as
principles. He also believed there were specific areas where more resources
were needed such as root servers and ccTLDs.

Operational functions of ICANN
Jeff Neuman said that in the list of functions stated, not one is really
inherent to ICANN, there is nothing in the White Paper that gives ICANN
those functions, and there is nothing to prevent the functions being
contracted out to other entities.
- - certain functions do not belong to ICANN such as issues pertaining to
transfers.
- - ICANN is confined to technical functions, if it were not limited in scope
it would have to include consumer protection.
- - it was felt that the contracts between Registrars and Registries specify
transfer policies so there is already the notion of some consumer protection
policy in these contracts.
- - ICANN's role is to produce competition and as such regulate consumer
protection.
Elisabeth Porteneuve for the ccTLDs said that in 3 years only  two service
contracts were signed with ccTLDs and nothing has been done about the root
servers in terms of contracts or distribution which is inadequate.
Understand the reason and ask why nothing has been done. Bodies in place are
perhaps insufficient to deal with the problem.
General operational functions should be defined and how they relate to the
working of the ASO.
Bruce Tonkin insisted that the core mission is in management of names
hierarchy and IP addresses. Too much emphasis is put on something that is
not related.
There was the concern expressed that the discussion was getting caught up in
functions rather than looking for ways to find a creative environment that
would allow ICANN to operate more efficiently.
- -Boundaries should be placed on where ICANN can go.

IP concerns
Ellen Shankman, J. Scott Evans and Laurence Djolakian said that IP is a core
function mentioned in the White Paper and has driven ICANN to be more
intrusive in policy goals. I  discussion the following points were made:
- - Concern that supervising the administration of the UDRP policy is a too
thin version of IP.
- - Opposition views that beyond the UDRP, ICANN would enter a jurisdiction
over which it did not possess the necessary expertise.
- - IP implications in coordinating functions and processes within the
organisation where laws that exist can be applied by IP owners to protect
their rights.

Marilyn Cade recalled that the White Paper was the result of international
consultation, was a broad hammered out set of documents leading to the MOU
with ICANN. If ICANN was not there the contract would go back to the
Department of Commerce.

IANA
IANA database up date concerning ccTLDs needs to be done carefully as there
is no procedure and individual relationships of each ccTLD with ICANN is
impossible.

Q. 2 Do we want to delete anything from the list?
Rita Rodin: the gTLD constituency had been looking at a thinner management
model for ICANN.
To do this the following functions could be removed:
- - certain administrative and policy functions relating to gTLD business
- - consumer protection
- - creation of infrastructure for at-large membership.
In response to this, concern was expressed by Tony Harris and Marilyn Cade
as to who would take on the tasks taken away from ICANN.
It was unclear what consumer protection could be taken away from ICANN's
existing functions unless this meant changing existing registry or registrar
contracts.

Priorities and a thinner ICANN
It was noticed that most constituencies prioritise functions for ICANN they
think are important. If there is any proposal for a thinner ICANN, then each
constituency will need to examine what it is prepared to see ICANN no longer
doing in order to maintain these priorities.

Conclusion
There were no universally agreed functions that should be deleted. There
were areas where the potential for mission creep was higher and the
following were suggested: security, consumer protection and the creation of
infrastructure for at-large membership.

Q. 3 Do we want to add anything to the list?
There were no proposals although there were supporters of some of the
existing functions being done better or having more resources given to
them: - ccTLD administrative functions - root server administration -
Registry and Registrar contract enforcement with respect to intellectual
property and other existing conditions.

Functional sub-divisions
Some NC members proposed that separation of technical and policy activities
would help increase ICANN efficiency and help with bottlenecks caused by the
existing staff hierarchy. If this happened there would need to be an
assessment if another entity or ICANN sub-division were capable of doing the
work and to ensure that there was legitimacy to the delegation.

Constituencies were encouraged to continue this discussion by e-mail to the
NC list. In the meantime the Chair will circulate the list with provisional
conclusions based on the above discussions.

The teleconference ended at 17:10

Next NC teleconference will be held on Thursday 4 April at 15:00 Paris time,
UTC 14:00 and focus on Financing ICANN.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----
Information from:
 © DNSO Names Council

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 08:54:29 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Abusing Consensus in the Transfers TF

> the vote that the registrars conducted on the Transfers document was 1
> Abstention, 4 Disapproved, 35 Approved, and 117 didn't bother to vote.
You
> might call that consensus; I don't... I call it just another vote.

You presume that the 117 that didn't bother to vote actually had a vote. The
Registrar Constituency is a membership based constituency that only
represents the views and interests of matters as it pertains to the
activities of the DNSO and other ICANN forums.

> It was
> apparent to most that the document was an incomplete piece of work -- it
> failed to define the role of the reseller/ISP acting as an agent on behalf
of
> the registrant, and it clearly did not define "apparent authority".

The document presumes that "natural" legal definitions of both. Further,
these points have been explored by the task force. It remains to be seen
what, if any, consensus the task force has on these points, but it is
neither the documents place, nor ICANN's to redefine pre-existing legal
definitions and roles.

> If
> anything, the consensus conclusion was that 3/4 of your constituency
> considered the document prematurely tabled, incomplete, and not ready to
be
> voted upon.

Again, this is not the case for the reasons noted above.

If the task force deems that my actions are premature, then we will deal
with that in the context of the task force. As it stands, your allegations
of inappropriate behavior simply do not wash.

- -rwr

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:16:26 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF

> Second, if issues relating to bankrupty are going to be publically
discussed at
> all, I would suggest that bankruptcy specialists from the relevant
jurisdictions
> be called in to provide at least an overview of the applicable issues.
FYI,
> every jurisdiction that I know of (and I know so little about bankruptcy
that I
> refuse to even play a bankruptcy specialist on TV) has laws that look at
(and in
> some cases rolll back)  financial transactions of people as they sink to
prevent
> siphoning off assets that might otherwise be divided among creditors.

It is a murky issue, but I fail to see the relevance. The clause in question
states:

"Instances when the requested change of sponsoring Registrar may be denied
include, but are not limited to:
...
2) A pending bankruptcy of the Registered Name holder
..."

If the losing registrar has been identified as a creditor in a company that
is in the process of declaring bankruptcy, the losing registrar has a
legitimate vested interest in ensuring that it's "soon-to-be-asset" isn't
transferred out to another registrar until such time that the actual
structure of the bankruptcy is declared and the asset details can be sorted
out by the relevent agencies.

It might be appropriate to include the rest of the TF in further discussions
on this subject to ensure an even distribution of issue data.

- -rwr

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 06:25:15 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF

Thursday, Thursday, March 28, 2002, 6:16:26 AM, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> It is a murky issue, but I fail to see the relevance. The clause in question
> states:

> "Instances when the requested change of sponsoring Registrar may be denied
> include, but are not limited to:
> ...
> 2) A pending bankruptcy of the Registered Name holder
> ..."

> If the losing registrar has been identified as a creditor in a company that
> is in the process of declaring bankruptcy, the losing registrar has a
> legitimate vested interest in ensuring that it's "soon-to-be-asset" isn't
> transferred out to another registrar until such time that the actual
> structure of the bankruptcy is declared and the asset details can be sorted
> out by the relevent agencies.

Perhaps then the section should be edited to read:

2) A pending bankruptcy of the Registered Name holder where the
Registrar is or may become a creditor.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 06:28:01 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF

Wednesday, Wednesday, March 27, 2002, 8:45:00 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:

> These are the facts.

No, they really are just your own opinions.

You pretty much stood alone on this list on your insistence that the
bankruptcy clause was inappropriate.  And I think you stand alone
still today.

How dare you presume to speak for what is in the best interests of
registrants anyway.  You have no mandate, not even the most flimsy
claim of a mandate, to do so.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:28:38 -0500
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF

ummmmm again reiterating that I dont even play a bankrupty specialist on TV, the
relevance is fairly simple.
Every asset (with exceptions natch or it would be too easy) of someone who is
bankrupt....is potential $$$ for the creditors.
A domain name...is an asset. The value of said asset can vary greatly, just like
listing 'car' as an asset can mean anything from a 15 year beater than can only
start going downhill to a $500k supercar, the value of a domain name....might be
something significant to creditors. And it does not matter who the creditors
are, banks, finance companies, registrars, etc. It's the relevant bankruptcy law
that governs how allllll the assets are divided up among the creditors.  The
'vested interest' has to get in line with the rest of the unsecured creditors
and hope for something left over after the secured creditors have been fed.
Attempting to do anything else via contract constitutes an attempt to circumvent
law, which is usually frowned upon.

Hope this is a bit clearer.

"Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:

> > Second, if issues relating to bankrupty are going to be publically
> discussed at
> > all, I would suggest that bankruptcy specialists from the relevant
> jurisdictions
> > be called in to provide at least an overview of the applicable issues.
> FYI,
> > every jurisdiction that I know of (and I know so little about bankruptcy
> that I
> > refuse to even play a bankruptcy specialist on TV) has laws that look at
> (and in
> > some cases rolll back)  financial transactions of people as they sink to
> prevent
> > siphoning off assets that might otherwise be divided among creditors.
>
> It is a murky issue, but I fail to see the relevance. The clause in question
> states:
>
> "Instances when the requested change of sponsoring Registrar may be denied
> include, but are not limited to:
> ...
> 2) A pending bankruptcy of the Registered Name holder
> ..."
>
> If the losing registrar has been identified as a creditor in a company that
> is in the process of declaring bankruptcy, the losing registrar has a
> legitimate vested interest in ensuring that it's "soon-to-be-asset" isn't
> transferred out to another registrar until such time that the actual
> structure of the bankruptcy is declared and the asset details can be sorted
> out by the relevent agencies.
>
> It might be appropriate to include the rest of the TF in further discussions
> on this subject to ensure an even distribution of issue data.
>
> -rwr

- --
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:31:28 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [fwd] [council] Draft conclusions of NC discussion on ICANN reform - scope (from: [email-masked])

For your information.  Philip's message with the full draft 
conclusions should be available from the Names Council List's web 
archives.
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/

- ----- Forwarded message from Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]> -----

From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
To: Philip Sheppard <[email-masked]>
Cc: "NC (list)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:30:15 +0100
Subject: Re: [council] Draft conclusions of NC discussion on ICANN reform - scope
Mail-Followup-To: Philip Sheppard <[email-masked]>,
	"NC (list)" <[email-masked]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.0i

On 2002-03-28 14:33:13 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote:

>The Names Council felt that the greatest danger of mission creep 
>lay in the areas of security, consumer protection and the creation 
>of infrastructure for at-large membership.

I object against mixing draft conclusions which specifically address 
ICANN's mission with remarks on one particular model for public 
participation with ICANN.

The risks and benefits of an at large membership can (and should) be 
discussed and addressed when the names council considers mechanisms 
for the selection of board members, and for structuring public 
input. In such a discussion (to which I'm looking forward), an 
at-large membership should be considered together with alternative 
options, such as the Lynn proposal's idea of governmental 
involvement with the nomination of board members (which would, most 
likely, also have a large impact on possible mission creep).

Please remove the words "and the creation of infrastructure for 
at-large membership" from the draft conclusions.

>Recommendation 2. ICANN's mission should not be extended beyond 
>that outlined in the note "What ICANN Does" .

Kind regards,
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/

- ----- End forwarded message -----
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:45:17 -0500
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF

How does a registrar know about a "pending bankruptcy", (meaning, where are
they getting their information from), if not by bankruptcy search on the
registrant?

No matter how solvent or insolvent the registrant may be, if there is no
debt at the time of transfer request, then there is no financial reason to
deny it, and conversely, if there is an outstanding account, the account
would need to be settled before the domain is released. What is your
problem? Why does any registrar need to pry so deeply into a registrant's
private financial affairs simply to effect a service change worth around
$10.00 per annum?

Furthermore, to say that Registrars can largely represent Registrants
because they deal with them on a day to day basis is analogous to the
abusive parents of a battered child insisting to the Court that a court
appointed representative for the child is not necessary since they are the
ones that look after the child and they have taken all comments from the
child into account where appropriate.

Suggesting a single GA representative is satisfactory for representing the
registrants perspective on a TF that comprises two reps from other
constituencies is unbalanced and misleading. Unlike the gTLDs, Registrars,
BC and IPC, the GA does not have secretariat facilities, a budget to conduct
outreach, a proper ID verification procedure, or even a way to separate out
comments received from registrant members and those from registrar members.
All have equal standing in the GA and the whole point of the GA is to allow
cross-constituency dialogue, so anything you're going to hear from the GA is
already colored by a mix of those whose best interests are in conflict with
registrants. When you mix apples with oranges, you can expect to have it
pointed out.

Regards,
Joann

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 3:01 AM
To: Joanna Lane; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF

>
> False. As a Registrant, I provided feedback to the Registrars through Ross
> Radar over a period of time before this final paper was published, and in
> particular objected to the proposed clause relating to the Registrar's
> ability to conduct a bankruptcy search on the Registrant, that allows the
> Registrar to deny a transfer for this reason, notwithstanding that the
> Registrars have no clue how to conduct a bankruptcy search in every nation
> on the globe. Furthermore, not one single person in the community has ever
> stated any useful purpose for this clause. This is a matter of invasion of
> privacy that I doubt any Registrant would voluntarily agree, yet is being
> completely overlooked by the Registrars.
>
> Secondly, I made stringent efforts to be included on this task force as a
> Registrant representative, mindful to ensure the Registrant community was
> included in deliberations, but was thrown off (literally) by Marilyn Cade,
> who silenced my voice by denying my posting privileges. Some time later, a
> GA Representative was appointed, since when there has been no work done.
>
> These are the facts.
>

How quickly history becomes distorted.

The conversation that we had did indeed center on . No such
conversation occurred concerning anything remotely related to a registrar
doing bankruptcy searches on anyone - in fact, no such power is granted to
Registrars in any contract related to ICANN that I'm aware of. Further,
these conversations occurred in the context of preparation of the best
practices document and not the TF. Each comment received on the RC Transfers
BP doc were taken into account and included where appropriate.

Second, I believe that your participation as a registrant representative was
not permitted simply because you do not represent registrants. Once a GA
the registrars capability
to deny a transfer based on a registrant "pending bankruptcy".

- -rwr

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1109
*************************