Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1110
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, March 29 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1110

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

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:48:36 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  Abusing consensus in the Tranfers TF

Ross,

Let's be clear about this... You seek to have the TF wrap up its business 
within one month and adopt your proposal even though there has been no effort 
made within the TF to seek the views of those that would be impacted by your 
proposed policy.  There has been no call for alternate proposals, no outreach 
conducted, and no attempt to formally involve the registrant community.  In 
spite of a teleconference devoted to the topic of apparent authority, there 
has been no Task Force language adopted to clarify that which constitutes 
apparent authority within the ICANN process.  On list, there has been no 
dialogue whatsoever between task force members other than you and Marilyn in 
the last month, and the new representatives from the NCDNHC haven't yet even 
entered into the TF to participate (and will surely require a fair amount of 
time to rise to the challenge imposed by the learning curve in this subject 
area).  

You argue that:  "The work of this task force thus far has focused on points 
number 1 through 5 in the Final Terms of Reference document tabled by our 
chairperson on December 4, 2001" and you now seek to move right on to the 
concluding point six.  Let me remind you of points 3 and 4:

3. Identify any issues not yet fully addressed by the Registrar's document 
and develop appropriate task force processes to ensure that these outstanding 
areas are addressed in a timely manner that reflects the input of all 
affected stakeholders;
4. Develop effective mechanism to take input from registrants (across all 
sectors-individuals, non commercial, government, corporate, other) for 
initial validation of concerns regarding impact of transfers on registrants;  
ensure documentation of such outreach; including requesting substantive 
submissions from those who may be affected; 

Prove to me that you have focused on these points.  If you can substantiate 
TF activities in compliance with these points then I will concur that you are 
ready to move on, otherwise it is wholly inappropriate behavior to move to 
closure of the TF process by April 30.
- --
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 09:59:10 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[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?
<snip>

Dan, Joanna - let's put it this way - I am not aware of any strong feelings
that our constituency may have concerning clause number two. If you wish to
raise this, and I hear no objection from our membership, I would consider
William's earlier amendment as friendly and important to the proposition.

It really does not make a lot of sense to debate this to death here if there
is no support or full support for the issue. I am willing to let this one
stand on its own and see what happens if it be your will to pursue this
further.

> 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

No one has made that claim. I have stated however that I have a high level
of awareness about the issues challenging registrants and forsee no conflict
with the policy that I have proposed and their goals.

> 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.

Why the GA only appointed one rep, I don't really know why. I could tell you
why the registrars appointed only one (we achieved consensus on this issue
and it wasn't deemed necessary to devote further resources to the issue). As
far as registrants not being represented, please tell me that you aren't
serious. The input of the various user constituencies coupled with Dan's
helpful participation has well served the interests of registrants. Further,
the outreach effort will increase the level and quality of input that
registrant's of all stripes have - again, nothing untowards here unless one
takes the rhetoric into account.

- -rwr

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 9:45 AM
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 condu
ct
> 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

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

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:20:34 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Cooperate or Not?

Milton Mueller has submitted the comment cited below to the NCDNHC advising 
the Community not to cooperate with the Committee on ICANN Evolution and 
Reform.  As the GA has two representatives now engaged in discussions with 
the Council leadership on restructuring initiatives, what position should the 
GA take?  

"I would encourage NCDNHC members not to waste their time submitting comments 
to this particular process.  The degree to which ICANN will be restructured 
is now in the hands of the US Government and wider political forces. A great 
deal of behind the scenes activity is underway now; ICANN itself is widely 
perceived as a failure.

A Board committee is not the forum in which these decisions should or will be 
made. The Board itself, which under the Lynn plan would be able to perpetuate 
itself by self-selecting its replacements in perpetuity, has a bit of a 
conflict of 
interest in reviewing other proposals, which is why the results of this 
particular exercise will not have much significance.

ICANN management and its dominant Board faction has made it clear what it 
wants (the Lynn plan). The Board has
indicated that it is willing to ignore its own hand-picked ALSC, which 
consumed hundreds of thousands of dollars, and it
is more than willing to ignore the DNSO (.org, .info country reservations, 
etc., etc.) Why do you think it will be any 
different this time?

I see no reason to expend any effort on this."

http://www.icann-ncc.org/pipermail/discuss/2002-March/001822.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 10:39:35 -0500
From: Joanna Lane <[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

- --
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 11:05:59 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Abusing consensus in the Tranfers TF

Let me be clear about this. The TF has and continues to undertake work
around points 1-5. My proposal simply advocates that we should begin to
analyze recommendations that will fulfill point 6 in parallel with our
closing work on points 1-5. If any of the work-yet-to-be-done on points 1-5
conflicts with our work on point 6 then we must reconsider our work on point
6.

It's called "parallelization of effort" and constitutes perfectly valid
process. As I mentioned to the TF sometime over the last couple of days, as
long as we remain cognizant of the interdependencies between the various
tracks, then we should have no problem working through to the deadline that
I proposed. It might require some additional horsepower and attention, but
it is a perfectly reasonable deadline.

As far as seeking your concurrence on our work schedule, I'm going to have
to defer. The reality of the matter is that there is a proposal on the table
that the TF can accept, reject, modify or do nothing with. If the GA has
significant agreement/disagreement with the approach that I am advocating,
then I would strongly recommend that you work with your representative and
chair to ensure that the prevailing sentiment of this forum is appropriately
represented in the TF. In other words, talk to the proposal.

While having this discussion here makes for good sport, it does very little
to contribute to timely closure of an issue that has been wallowing in the
DNSO for over a year now.

- -rwr

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 9:48 AM
Subject: [ga] Re: Abusing consensus in the Tranfers TF

> Ross,
>
> Let's be clear about this... You seek to have the TF wrap up its business
> within one month and adopt your proposal even though there has been no
effort
> made within the TF to seek the views of those that would be impacted by
your
> proposed policy.  There has been no call for alternate proposals, no
outreach
> conducted, and no attempt to formally involve the registrant community.
In
> spite of a teleconference devoted to the topic of apparent authority,
there
> has been no Task Force language adopted to clarify that which constitutes
> apparent authority within the ICANN process.  On list, there has been no
> dialogue whatsoever between task force members other than you and Marilyn
in
> the last month, and the new representatives from the NCDNHC haven't yet
even
> entered into the TF to participate (and will surely require a fair amount
of
> time to rise to the challenge imposed by the learning curve in this
subject
> area).
>
> You argue that:  "The work of this task force thus far has focused on
points
> number 1 through 5 in the Final Terms of Reference document tabled by our
> chairperson on December 4, 2001" and you now seek to move right on to the
> concluding point six.  Let me remind you of points 3 and 4:
>
> 3. Identify any issues not yet fully addressed by the Registrar's document
> and develop appropriate task force processes to ensure that these
outstanding
> areas are addressed in a timely manner that reflects the input of all
> affected stakeholders;
> 4. Develop effective mechanism to take input from registrants (across all
> sectors-individuals, non commercial, government, corporate, other) for
> initial validation of concerns regarding impact of transfers on
registrants;
> ensure documentation of such outreach; including requesting substantive
> submissions from those who may be affected;
>
> Prove to me that you have focused on these points.  If you can
substantiate
> TF activities in compliance with these points then I will concur that you
are
> ready to move on, otherwise it is wholly inappropriate behavior to move to
> closure of the TF process by April 30.
> --
> 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 11:17:09 -0500
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF

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

Thank you, this represents a significant improvement. There should also be a
definition for "pending bankruptcy" attached to this document shouldn't
there? Potentially, every registrar "may become a creditor" of every
registrant, and every registrant is theoretically a prospective bankrupt,
the line between pending and prospective being a little fuzzy, so perhaps
the edit should read:-

2) A pending bankruptcy of the Registered Name Holder where the Registrar is
a named creditor.

Regards,
Joanna

I apologize to Dan, I did not mean to cast aspersions on his voluntary
contributions, only on the intolerable inadequacies of a system over which
he has no control.

- --
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 08:36:01 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF

Thursday, Thursday, March 28, 2002, 8:17:09 AM, Joanna Lane wrote:

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

> Thank you, this represents a significant improvement. There should also be a
> definition for "pending bankruptcy" attached to this document shouldn't
> there? Potentially, every registrar "may become a creditor" of every
> registrant, and every registrant is theoretically a prospective bankrupt,
> the line between pending and prospective being a little fuzzy, so perhaps
> the edit should read:-

> 2) A pending bankruptcy of the Registered Name Holder where the Registrar is
> a named creditor.

I disagree.  The "pending bankruptcy" part is sufficient, since there
is no pending bankruptcy unless the registrant has actually filed, so
a potential creditor is not a potential creditor unless there is a
bankruptcy pending in court.

- -- 
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 12:57:55 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Proposed Transfers Policy

Dear Dan,

Please convey the following sentiments to the Transfers TF:

The Registrar Constituency has proposed amending current contract language by 
adding one additional instance when a requested change of sponsoring 
Registrar may be denied, such instance referencing the circumstances 
described in the Registrar Transfer Statement of Best Practices document 
cited at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/doc00059.doc

These circumstances are predicated upon Losing Registrar arriving at a 
determination that the Gaining Registrar has not appropriately implemented 
the processes contemplated by this document.  Allowing the denial of transfer 
to rest solely upon a determination made by the Losing Registrar exposes the 
registrant to an unacceptable risk factor, as his rights to a decision free 
from arbitrary and capricious action are not guaranteed by this process.

The argument has been put forth that the Losing Registrar may deny a transfer 
request only when either of the following conditions are satisfied:  it 
receives an express objection from a Registered Name holder or an individual 
who has the apparent authority to legally bind the Registered Name Holder, or 
the Gaining Registrar fails to comply with the minimum standards and 
practices contemplated by this document and/or the relevant Registry 
Agreement. 

Such minimum standards call for "a written or electronic copy of reliable 
evidence of authorization by the Registered Name holder or an individual who 
has the apparent authority to legally bind the Registered Name holder."  
Nowhere in this document is apparent authority defined, and evidence of 
authorization, either written or electronic, is subject to dispute based 
solely on Losing Registrar's reasons (including allegations of suspicious 
transaction patterns) and determination.

While both Gaining and Losing registrars are imbued with many rights in this 
process, there are no rights to review or appeal accorded to the registrant.

Further, if the Gaining Registrar fails to respond to the request from the 
Losing Registrar, the Losing Registrar may choose not to honor all future 
transfer requests from the Gaining Registrar until such time that the Gaining 
Registrar can provide the Losing Registrar with a copy of the FOA as set 
forth in the Transfers document.  This places all other such registrants at 
risk of a denial of transfer solely based upon the failure of registrars to 
abide by their own best practices, again with no right of appeal. 
 
In similar fashion, if the Gaining Registrar provides evidence of compliance 
not consistent with the minimum standards and processes contemplated by this 
document, the Losing Registrar may choose not to honor all future transfer 
requests from the Gaining Registrar until such time that the Gaining 
Registrar can satisfy the Losing Registrar that they have adopted the minimum 
standards and processes contemplated by this document.  Once more, this 
unacceptably places a potentially large class of registrants at the mercy of 
the unappealable decisions of Losing Registrars without due process 
provisions. 

The rights of registrants have not been considered by this document as 
tendered by the Registrars.  In addition to these concerns, registrants need 
to be mindful of the possibility of capricious use of registrar lock 
processes that have not been contemplated by this document.  There are no 
penalties proposed for a registrar failure to comply with the terms of the 
document, either monetary or by way of disaccreditation.  A contract without 
enforcement provisions does not suit the needs of the registrant community 
that must be protected from the continued prospect of registrar abuse.

- --
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 13:46:36 -0500
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Proposed Transfers Policy

"A contract without
enforcement provisions does not suit the needs of the registrant community
that must be protected from the continued prospect of registrar abuse."

ICANN is not a legal enforcement organization according to Stuart Lynn. Who
do you propose does the enforcement?

Joanna

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 12:58 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Proposed Transfers Policy

Dear Dan,

Please convey the following sentiments to the Transfers TF:

The Registrar Constituency has proposed amending current contract language
by
adding one additional instance when a requested change of sponsoring
Registrar may be denied, such instance referencing the circumstances
described in the Registrar Transfer Statement of Best Practices document
cited at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/doc00059.doc

These circumstances are predicated upon Losing Registrar arriving at a
determination that the Gaining Registrar has not appropriately implemented
the processes contemplated by this document.  Allowing the denial of
transfer
to rest solely upon a determination made by the Losing Registrar exposes the
registrant to an unacceptable risk factor, as his rights to a decision free
from arbitrary and capricious action are not guaranteed by this process.

The argument has been put forth that the Losing Registrar may deny a
transfer
request only when either of the following conditions are satisfied:  it
receives an express objection from a Registered Name holder or an individual
who has the apparent authority to legally bind the Registered Name Holder,
or
the Gaining Registrar fails to comply with the minimum standards and
practices contemplated by this document and/or the relevant Registry
Agreement.

Such minimum standards call for "a written or electronic copy of reliable
evidence of authorization by the Registered Name holder or an individual who
has the apparent authority to legally bind the Registered Name holder."
Nowhere in this document is apparent authority defined, and evidence of
authorization, either written or electronic, is subject to dispute based
solely on Losing Registrar's reasons (including allegations of suspicious
transaction patterns) and determination.

While both Gaining and Losing registrars are imbued with many rights in this
process, there are no rights to review or appeal accorded to the registrant.

Further, if the Gaining Registrar fails to respond to the request from the
Losing Registrar, the Losing Registrar may choose not to honor all future
transfer requests from the Gaining Registrar until such time that the
Gaining
Registrar can provide the Losing Registrar with a copy of the FOA as set
forth in the Transfers document.  This places all other such registrants at
risk of a denial of transfer solely based upon the failure of registrars to
abide by their own best practices, again with no right of appeal.

In similar fashion, if the Gaining Registrar provides evidence of compliance
not consistent with the minimum standards and processes contemplated by this
document, the Losing Registrar may choose not to honor all future transfer
requests from the Gaining Registrar until such time that the Gaining
Registrar can satisfy the Losing Registrar that they have adopted the
minimum
standards and processes contemplated by this document.  Once more, this
unacceptably places a potentially large class of registrants at the mercy of
the unappealable decisions of Losing Registrars without due process
provisions.

The rights of registrants have not been considered by this document as
tendered by the Registrars.  In addition to these concerns, registrants need
to be mindful of the possibility of capricious use of registrar lock
processes that have not been contemplated by this document.  There are no
penalties proposed for a registrar failure to comply with the terms of the
document, either monetary or by way of disaccreditation.  A contract without
enforcement provisions does not suit the needs of the registrant community
that must be protected from the continued prospect of registrar abuse.

- --
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 10:54:41 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposed Transfers Policy

Thursday, Thursday, March 28, 2002, 9:57:55 AM, [email-masked] wrote:

> Dear Dan,

> Please convey the following sentiments to the Transfers TF:

Please don't.  I don't feel the comments by Mr Younger are
representative of the GA.  If Mr Younger wants to make comments as an
individual, he is free 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 15:02:41 -0500
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF

ummmmmmmmmm why?
what is the relevance to this discussion? the issue is registrant bankruptcy. not
bankruptcy of any of the organizations in the mix.

eric wrote:

> This is quite interesting.
> Can someone point to a non-profit public benefit corp that has gone bankrupt?
>
> Eric
>
> Dan Steinberg wrote:
>
> > 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

- --
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: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:56:04 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF

At 06:28 28/03/02 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:
>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.

Sure, sure. Individuals have to be kept speaking in isolation.

This is why a registrant organization such as the IDNO , where spokespeople 
could be elected by a credible mass of registrants and speak with a proper 
mandate, had to be fought tooth and claw for 3 years or taken over.

Just be very cautious in accepting  the "mandate" of the supply siders who 
now  have captured the Individual Domain Name Owners constituency.
Elections for an IDNO ExeCom have now been "set aside".

- --Joop

- --
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: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:43:41 +1100
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
|> On Behalf Of Joop Teernstra
|> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 11:56 AM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Cc: Joanna Lane; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
|> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF
|> 
|> Sure, sure. Individuals have to be kept speaking in isolation.
|> 
|> This is why a registrant organization such as the IDNO , where
spokespeople 
|> could be elected by a credible mass of registrants and speak with a
proper 
|> mandate, had to be fought tooth and claw for 3 years or taken over.

Sour grapes JoopT, as the IDNO membership finally refused to accept your
dictator role within the organisation?

|> Just be very cautious in accepting  the "mandate" of the supply
siders who 
|> now  have captured the Individual Domain Name Owners constituency.

There has not been any capture.  The IDNO is finally in the hands and
control of the membership.  Instead of being dicatated to by you,
members now have the opportunity of progressing.

|> Elections for an IDNO ExeCom have now been "set aside".

I'm sure the GA does not wish to hear about the internal workings of the
IDNO, so I will not go into the issues involved with current processes.
Those wishing to get a balanced view of the organisation can always
follow up on the appropriate forums.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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 18:10:29 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF

Thursday, Thursday, March 28, 2002, 4:56:04 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> This is why a registrant organization such as the IDNO , where spokespeople 
> could be elected by a credible mass of registrants and speak with a proper 
> mandate, had to be fought tooth and claw for 3 years or taken over.

Oh please.  Spokespeople in the IDNO were only elected if they agreed
to tow the Joop line.  There was no mandate with that.  The members
stood up to your bullying and dictatorial control, and I have to say
that since that time, the quality of the discussion and the tone has
been much improved.  People can disagree and compromise without
turning it into a war, which was how you insisted things be done since
it was either your way or no way.

And when you lost, despite no one asking you to leave the list, and
despite a strong sentiment that you would be immediately allowed to
return, you chose to completely leave and have nothing to do with it.

What is happening now is people are working together through
compromise, consensus, and common sense.  If only you had agreed to do
that months ago, the IDNO would be much further along right now.  But
instead you wanted to make it all one way or the other.

The members decided that someone who was going to play that game was
not welcome.  You are the one who advocated that the members would
have the right to do that to other members.

We reap what we sow, Joop.

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1110
*************************