Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1122
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, April 10 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1122

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

Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 13:09:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Time to regulate the Re-Sellers

Sure, and while we are regulating people, let's regulate fraudulent web
pages, all spammers (they use the dns, don't they), and blasphemers.

In other words, NO THANKS.  This is not ICANN's mission.  It is not a
technical issue AT ALL -- it's a commercial/regulatory issue and the
appropriate place to complain is the regulatory authorities in the home of
the offender.

On Tue, 9 Apr 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> The following post has appeared on the registrars list:
> 
> A Registrar (most probably a reseller of ICANN accredited Registrar) caused 
> one of the most severe massive SPAMs we have ever seen. It goes by those two 
> names.
> 
> http://www.affordable-domains.com
> http://www.renewmydomains.com
> 
> it took our mail server down for couple of hours today.  For those who are 
> curious, two SPAM messages are attached below.  (see 
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02287.html  for details).  
> If one of our Resellers would do this we would terminate them.
> -----------------------------------------------
> 
> A subsequent post to the registrar's list 
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02289.html revealed that 
> the reseller operates on behalf of SRSPlus... a Verisign company.
> 
> In my opinion, it is time to regulate the re-seller community to the same 
> degree that we regulate the activities of registrars.  If registrars take no 
> action to police their own industry, and if they are not held accountable for 
> the actions of their re-sellers, then this industry is surely begging for the 
> same type of governmental intervention that impacted the telecommunications 
> industry.   
> 
> I, for one, do not seek an enhanced role for governments.  It is ICANN's 
> responsibility to manage the Domain Name system.  Resellers acting as loose 
> cannons do not serve this industry well, and should be brought under control. 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot here.<--

- --
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: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 13:36:04 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Time to regulate the Re-Sellers

Michael, 

I disagree with your conclusion that <<This is not ICANN's mission.  It is 
not a technical issue AT ALL>>

As you well know, ICANN's current mission is not restricted "only" to 
technical matters, as is made clear by the language in the MOU, such as:   
"Collaborate on the design, development, and testing of a plan for 
introduction of competition in domain name registration services"

This part of our Mission calls for the establishment of "policy" to attend to 
competitive concerns.    Perhaps you would like ICANN to re-define its 
mission, but at the moment the creation of policies to govern competitive 
practices is indeed within our mission.  
- --
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: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 14:19:19 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Pointless TF Survey

[email-masked] wrote:

>Dear Dan Steinberg and members of the Transfers TF:
><snip>
>In reading comments at http://nsihorrorstories.com/index.shtml, I see my 
>story is nothing unique. This is a clear demonstration of anticompetitive 
>practices. Verisign obviously does not want others to take their business so 
>rather than end the contract they say the domain is in "unpaid" status and 
>use that as an excuse to keep other registrars from taking their business.  
>Clearly something needs to be done about this.
>
Mr Steinberg and Transfers "Task Force" Members,

I too have suffered the exact same thing as Danny at the NSI/Verisign 
Registry/Registrar. Pardon me, but when the f**k are you people going to 
actually do something towards rectifying the existing situation? This TF 
has all the appearances of another sham/token gesture replete with the 
typical cast of likely candidates.  Please, speak up Mr. Steinberg (IP 
Lawyer).  This is a substantive matter of great imporance and we're 
waiting for your input on how this matter will be resolved.

Sincerely,

Sotirs Sotiropoulos

[Am I pissed off?  You better believe it!]

- --
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: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 14:57:14 -0400 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Time to regulate the Re-Sellers

It seems to me that there is a principle that could reasonably be applied
here:  If there are already mechanisms in place with various jurisdictions
around the world to deal with particular issues, then it is unnecessary for
ICANN to duplicate the associated functions.  For example, I believe that
most jurisdictions have anti-trust laws and agencies to enforce those, so it
is unnecessary for ICANN to get involved in anti-trust issues.  Similarly, I
believe that there are consumer protection mechanisms already in place in
most major regions of the world, so it is unnecessary for ICANN to get
involved in consumer protection.

Therefore, I agree with Michael that the "appropriate place to complain is
the regulatory authorities in the home of the offender" and not ICANN.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 1:09 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Time to regulate the Re-Sellers
> 
> 
> Sure, and while we are regulating people, let's regulate 
> fraudulent web
> pages, all spammers (they use the dns, don't they), and blasphemers.
> 
> In other words, NO THANKS.  This is not ICANN's mission.  It is not a
> technical issue AT ALL -- it's a commercial/regulatory issue and the
> appropriate place to complain is the regulatory authorities 
> in the home of
> the offender.
> 
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> > The following post has appeared on the registrars list:
> > 
> > A Registrar (most probably a reseller of ICANN accredited 
> Registrar) caused 
> > one of the most severe massive SPAMs we have ever seen. It 
> goes by those two 
> > names.
> > 
> > http://www.affordable-domains.com
> > http://www.renewmydomains.com
> > 
> > it took our mail server down for couple of hours today.  
> For those who are 
> > curious, two SPAM messages are attached below.  (see 
> > 
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02287.html 
>  for details).  
> > If one of our Resellers would do this we would terminate them.
> > -----------------------------------------------
> > 
> > A subsequent post to the registrar's list 
> > 
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02289.html 
> revealed that 
> > the reseller operates on behalf of SRSPlus... a Verisign company.
> > 
> > In my opinion, it is time to regulate the re-seller 
> community to the same 
> > degree that we regulate the activities of registrars.  If 
> registrars take no 
> > action to police their own industry, and if they are not 
> held accountable for 
> > the actions of their re-sellers, then this industry is 
> surely begging for the 
> > same type of governmental intervention that impacted the 
> telecommunications 
> > industry.   
> > 
> > I, for one, do not seek an enhanced role for governments.  
> It is ICANN's 
> > responsibility to manage the Domain Name system.  Resellers 
> acting as loose 
> > cannons do not serve this industry well, and should be 
> brought under control. 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> 		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                         -->It's hot here.<--
> 
> --
> 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: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 11:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Time to regulate the Re-Sellers

On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

> Sure, and while we are regulating people, let's regulate fraudulent web
> pages, all spammers (they use the dns, don't they), and blasphemers.
> 
> In other words, NO THANKS.  This is not ICANN's mission.  It is not a
> technical issue AT ALL -- it's a commercial/regulatory issue and the
> appropriate place to complain is the regulatory authorities in the home of
> the offender.

I agree.  ICANN has crept its mission well beyond its proper roles.

ICANN is not a consumer protection body.  Yes, ICANN has lifted the lid on 
that Pandora's box and look at the mess that it has created as a result.

ICANN needs to slam the lid back down, start doing what it ought to have 
been doing all along - technical coordination - and leave the issues of 
public policy to the bodies that were created for that purpose.

This is why there is such a gulf between the few paragraphs that I
published as to ICANN's duties and what ICANN's staff published as it's
telephone-book sized book of jobs it does.

Yes, it will be a mess to clean up the mess that ICANN has already 
created.  But let's not make it any worse by adding even more jobs for 
ICANN to do poorly.

		--karl--

- --
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: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 21:06:49 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Time to regulate the Re-Sellers

Objection your both Honors. You are discussing in XXth words using plain 
ICANNese language. We are XXIth as you may know. :-)

What is the difference? "Yes the ICANN is to regulate. No the ICANN is not" 
has IMHO no meaning.

We are not in a regulated environment. We are in a distributed 
international system and whatever someone does it has an impact. Willing or 
not what the ICANN does has an impact. On every thing. Like me having open 
a public nationwide 7000 TLD service today supporting 3.000.000 domain 
names  may have an impact - on my purse first since everythnig is still 
free :-)

Now, what they do not understand is that we are not in a centralized 
federal legal system. Not even in a lose confederative one. We are at high 
sea in international waters. This does not means there is no law and no way 
to enforce them, but that the ways are different. There are Internet rules 
as there are universal navigation rules: BTW they are named the same 
n[aval]etiquette . There are good practices. There is good example. You 
cannot force, but you catalyze and find ways to oblige. Most of all: you 
must make bad things unnecessary or unrewarding. (Black Ivory trade stopped 
when it did not pay anymore because of the progress on the puchasing shore).

Why such a spamming. Because a reseller wants to survive its Registrar in 
selling DNs. Why to sell DNs, why Registrars, why Registrars in a weak 
position?

The problem is that ICANN shows wrong signals and catalyzes badly. The 
contract policy is so opposed to general simple rules that no one wants to 
sign them. Why do you want spammers to respect contracts ccTLDs does not 
wantto sign and no one can enforce. When ICANN starts creating colliders, 
why do you want TLD squatters to care? Why do you want people to care about 
digital divide when .org is first a big money issue.

Great seamen in History had no more to fight: ennemies surrendered when 
seeing their flag. There is a long long way before ICANN is acknowledged 
that kind of respect.

For example fostering competition was not to create a complex competition 
among unnecessary Registrars and hungry resellers, but to permit enough 
TLDs so there would have been quality competition between Registries, and 
consultants could have installed and developed the sites of their 
customers. Who cares about quality? Where are the consumer organizations 
qualifying good Registrars and poor ones - anyway they are blocked by NSI.

jfc

On 19:36 09/04/02, [email-masked] said:
>Michael,
>
>I disagree with your conclusion that <<This is not ICANN's mission.  It is
>not a technical issue AT ALL>>
>
>As you well know, ICANN's current mission is not restricted "only" to
>technical matters, as is made clear by the language in the MOU, such as:
>"Collaborate on the design, development, and testing of a plan for
>introduction of competition in domain name registration services"
>
>This part of our Mission calls for the establishment of "policy" to attend to
>competitive concerns.    Perhaps you would like ICANN to re-define its
>mission, but at the moment the creation of policies to govern competitive
>practices is indeed within our mission.
>--
>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: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 21:15:03 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Time to regulate the Re-Sellers

On 2002-04-09 13:36:04 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:

>As you well know, ICANN's current mission is not restricted "only" 
>to technical matters, as is made clear by the language in the MOU, 
>such as: "Collaborate on the design, development, and testing of a 
>plan for introduction of competition in domain name registration 
>services"

What you quote here is language from a time when there basically was 
a monopoly on the registration market.  This language refers to a 
_plan_ for _introduction_ of competition in that market.  That's a 
very different thing from enforcing fair competitive practices in a 
market which is so competitive that some of the participants even 
seem to overstep the boundaries of lawful conduct.

>This part of our Mission calls for the establishment of "policy" 
>to attend to competitive concerns.  Perhaps you would like ICANN 
>to re-define its mission, but at the moment the creation of 
>policies to govern competitive practices is indeed within our 
>mission.

ICANN should _never_ seek to make things part of its mission which 
can be handled considerably better by other bodies.  Competitive 
practices which are covered by offline law belong into this category 
of things.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.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: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 15:18:05 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Time to regulate the Re-Sellers

One of the reasons for ICANN's existence, at least according to our Articles 
of Incorporation, is to pursue the charitable and public purposes of 
lessening the burdens of government.  

The approach that both Michael and Karl advocate is designed not to lessen 
such burdens, but conversely, to increase the burdens of government by 
shifting away from ICANN and back into the hands of government that which 
ICANN has already been given the power to regulate -- domain name system 
registration processes.   

Today, registrants deal as often with domain name resellers as they do with 
registrars, but this former group is accountable to no one and contributes 
nothing to ICANN's funding, even while reaping all the benefits of ICANN's 
services.  

An accreditation process for resellers is warranted, and can generate 
additional revenues for the organization.  
If we are empowered to set the parameters for registrar "Business Dealings, 
Including with Registered Name Holders" (section 3.7 Registrar Accreditation 
Agreement), we can certainly establish policies for those others that 
similarly provide equivalent domain name registration services.   
- --
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: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 15:56:46 -0700
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Time to regulate the Re-Sellers

"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
> 
> It seems to me that there is a principle that could reasonably be
> applied here:  If there are already mechanisms in place with
> various jurisdictions around the world to deal with particular
> issues, then it is unnecessary for
> ICANN to duplicate the associated functions.  

I agree.

> For example, I believe that most jurisdictions have anti-trust
> laws and agencies to enforce those, so it
> is unnecessary for ICANN to get involved in anti-trust issues.  
Yes.

Of course, most juristictions also have trademark laws and
enforcement mechanisims for them. I'd therefore say we should
scrap at least the trademark-related parts of the UDRP. 

I expect to hear a chorus of agreement on that point. However,
what would be interesting would be to hear some of those who
disagree explain why trademark is an exception to Chuck's
Priciple.

> Similarly, I believe that there are consumer protection mechanisms
> already in place in
> most major regions of the world, so it is unnecessary for ICANN to get
> involved in consumer protection.

Yes. 

However, we do need to be careful that the interests of Internet
users are well represented in the ICANN process. ICANN is
supposed to be for the "public benefit". That's different from
getting involved in consumer protection, but there is overlap.
- --
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: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 22:20:10 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Time to regulate the Re-Sellers

On 2002-04-09 14:57:14 -0400, Chuck Gomes wrote:

>Therefore, I agree with Michael that the "appropriate place to 
>complain is the regulatory authorities in the home of the 
>offender" and not ICANN.

Apart of that, it is, of course, also legitimate to complain to the 
offenders themselves, and to the public.  (And, in fact, one would 
hope that it would not be necessary to resort to regulatory 
authorities at all, at least as far as core members of the ICANN 
community are concerned.)

After all, one could still hope that certain registrars and their 
resellers may finally come to reason, and understand that the best 
marketing you can get is a reputation for good customer service, and 
for being worth customers' trust.

On the other hand, practices like: sending out bills when the domain 
has already been renewed, putting customers on hold for ten minutes 
on international phone calls prompted by such wrong bills, spamming 
customers of other registrars when their domain is due for renewal 
(possibly deceiving them), hoarding domains, and whatever else some 
registrars may come up with, - such practices have two effects: They 
cause collateral damage to the collective image of the registrars' 
and resellers' communities, and they can destroy any trust customers 
may still have had into their current suppliers, if these suppliers 
are engaging in such practices.

As a corollary, they cause an increasing willingness even with "kind 
of satisfied" customers to change suppliers.  This may (I hope!), in 
the long term, have the effect that competition gives certain 
registrars the necessary incentive to play by the rules.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.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: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 14:19:28 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Time to regulate the Re-Sellers

On Tue, 9 Apr 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> One of the reasons for ICANN's existence, at least according to our Articles
> of Incorporation, is to pursue the charitable and public purposes of
> lessening the burdens of government.

> The approach that both Michael and Karl advocate is designed not to
> lessen such burdens, but conversely, to increase the burdens of
> government by shifting away from ICANN and back into the hands of
> government that which ICANN has already been given the power to regulate
> -- domain name system registration processes.

The notion of reducing the burdens of government in ICANN's Articles of
Incorporations is a very strange one.

Certainly I hope that my government (United States) doesn't find things
like due process, equal protection, and the like to be burdens.

So I have a hard time giving credence to logic that says that government
burdens are lifted by ICANN-enacted private laws that lack the protections
provided by government laws and procedures.

Indeed, I'd put it quite the other way around - by creating such a sty of
unprincipled and unfair procedures, ICANN is creating a mess that is going
to take governmental efforts of Herculean proportions to clean up.

I guess we can add to the list of things to be reformed in ICANN - remove
the "reduce burdens" language in the Articles and substitute something
that more clearly identifies ICANN's role and improves upon the current
language's rather vague identification of the beneficiaries.

		--karl--

- --
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: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 00:28:03 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA summary 2002-13

This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list's (and related) 
discussions and news between April 3, 2002, and April 9, 2002.

GA list archives are available online at 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/maillist.html>.

Please feel free to forward this summary as you believe to be 
appropriate.

				Topics

(i) RIR contracts.  Jefsey Morfin forwarded a message from Ray Plzak 
of ARIN in which the RIRs make an assuring statement on the state of 
contract negotiations with ICANN, and indicate that "as a sign of 
good faith [...] the RIRs will release one half of" the funds kept 
in escrow "to ICANN."
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00121.html>

As an update to this, Bret Fausett's icann.Blog points to a draft of
a "Relationship Agreement", which was posted on ICANN's web site. 
<http://www.lextext.com/icann/2002/04/09.html#a267>

(ii) Final statement of NAIS.  Rob Courtney posted the NAIS group's 
final statement to the GA list, which states that the group's work 
is "largely complete."
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00117.html>

(iii) Transfers.  The Transfer Task Force's work showed up in 
discussions at various points of time; I'll restrict the summary to 
those postings which consisted of something else than rhetorics.

Danny Younger forwarded a message Patrick Mevzeck had sent to 
the registrars' list.  The message suggests that investigation of a 
subject's "apparent authority" to initiate a domain transfer should 
be outsourced to some accredited provider - like what happens with 
UDRP as well.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02279.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02281.html>, 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00137.html>.

Joanna Lane suggested that the "bankruptcy clause" should be removed 
 from the transfer policy, and that this should be an issue with 
which the transfer task force should deal.  In a follow-up, William 
Walsh noted that "this issue is not the reason why the transfer task 
force was created." He suggested that the bankruptcy clause "can 
wait." Marilyn Cade suggested that Joanna should draft questions 
related to that issue for the transfer task force's survey. 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00183.html>,  
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00184.html>, 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00187.html>.

(iv) NC teleconference on April 4.  The agenda and the MP3 recording 
were posted. 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00125.html>, 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00158.html>.

(v) Skeleton structure.  Alexander Svensson posted a skeleton 
structure.  The document consists of two parts: "The first part is a 
hopefully less controversial layered skeleton structure. 
Additionally, there is a proposal on splitting responsibilities into 
three recognizable parts which separate budgets. Be prepared to like 
the first and dislike the second part or vice versa," Alexander 
writes.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00202.html>

(vi) Policy development.  I posted a rough outline of a moderately 
modified task force process for policy development, which assumes 
that (a) membership is restricted to stakeholder representatives, 
but not names council members, and (b) uses staff instead of 
(naturally biased) volunteers for the chair's and editor's jobs. 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00149.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00170.html>

Michael Froomkin responded that "the difficulty of doing this right 
is one of the most powerful arguments for decentralization and 
parallel processing.  ICANN's sole job would be to prevent 
inconsistent outcomes [...]."
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00150.html>

Danny Younger suggested not to use task forces, and rely on the work 
of WG-D instead. 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00157.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-d/Arc02/msg00000.html>

In order to bring more structure into that debate, I also posted a 
rough list of parameters for policy making.  Alexander Svensson and 
others added various comments, and pros and cons.  A summary of some 
of these is available as a large table 
(<http://does-not-exist.org/ga-structure/policy-making.html>). 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00211.html>, 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00212.html>.

Part of the discussion also covered the question what size a working 
group or task force can realistically have, while still working. 
Alexander argued that his "personal impression is that the maximum 
size for such a group is somewhere at 15 or 20 persons, regardless 
of the tools used." 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00220.html>.

(vii) Reseller/registrar (mis-)behavior and ICANN mission.  Danny 
Younger forwarded a message on a reseller causing massive SPAM.  He 
concludes that "if registrars take no action to police their own 
industry, and if they are not held accountable for the actions of 
their re-sellers, then this industry is surely begging for the same 
type of governmental intervention that impacted the 
telecommunications industry." Danny's suggestion is that ICANN 
should help to bring "resellers acting as loose cannons" "under 
control." 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00228.html>

There were several posters who disagreed, and argued that
anticompetitive and illegal behavior of resellers and registrars
should be left to traditional authorities which are already
responsible for dealing with it.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00229.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00232.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00235.html>.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.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: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 18:59:19 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Time to regulate the Re-Sellers

Sandy Harris wrote:

>"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
>
>>It seems to me that there is a principle that could reasonably be
>>applied here:  If there are already mechanisms in place with
>>various jurisdictions around the world to deal with particular
>>issues, then it is unnecessary for
>>ICANN to duplicate the associated functions.  
>>
>
>I agree.
>
Me too.  :-)

>
>
>>For example, I believe that most jurisdictions have anti-trust
>>laws and agencies to enforce those, so it
>>is unnecessary for ICANN to get involved in anti-trust issues.  
>>
>Yes.
>
>Of course, most juristictions also have trademark laws and
>enforcement mechanisims for them. I'd therefore say we should
>scrap at least the trademark-related parts of the UDRP.
>
Hear, here!!!!  

> 
>
>I expect to hear a chorus of agreement on that point. However,
>what would be interesting would be to hear some of those who
>disagree explain why trademark is an exception to Chuck's
>Priciple.
>
Perhaps Chuck himself will explain.  Somehow I doubt he will though.  

>
>
>>Similarly, I believe that there are consumer protection mechanisms
>>already in place in
>>most major regions of the world, so it is unnecessary for ICANN to get
>>involved in consumer protection.
>>
>
>Yes. 
>
>However, we do need to be careful that the interests of Internet
>users are well represented in the ICANN process. ICANN is
>supposed to be for the "public benefit". That's different from
>getting involved in consumer protection, but there is overlap.
>
Indeed there is some overlap, but very little when quantified with 
respect to the corporate interest protections built into the current 
ICANN structure.  The deck is heavily stacked against the public's benefit.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 19:43:26 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Time to regulate the Re-Sellers

Thomas,

I agree in kind with you here.

I just think that governments have existing systems to deal with fraud,
false advertising, invasion of privacy and the like.

We do better fitting into existing systems than we do rebuilding as though
reinventing the wheel.
Also I like free enterprise to regulate not governments.

Sincerely,
Eric

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-04-09 14:57:14 -0400, Chuck Gomes wrote:
>
> >Therefore, I agree with Michael that the "appropriate place to
> >complain is the regulatory authorities in the home of the
> >offender" and not ICANN.
>
> Apart of that, it is, of course, also legitimate to complain to the
> offenders themselves, and to the public.  (And, in fact, one would
> hope that it would not be necessary to resort to regulatory
> authorities at all, at least as far as core members of the ICANN
> community are concerned.)
>
> After all, one could still hope that certain registrars and their
> resellers may finally come to reason, and understand that the best
> marketing you can get is a reputation for good customer service, and
> for being worth customers' trust.
>
> On the other hand, practices like: sending out bills when the domain
> has already been renewed, putting customers on hold for ten minutes
> on international phone calls prompted by such wrong bills, spamming
> customers of other registrars when their domain is due for renewal
> (possibly deceiving them), hoarding domains, and whatever else some
> registrars may come up with, - such practices have two effects: They
> cause collateral damage to the collective image of the registrars'
> and resellers' communities, and they can destroy any trust customers
> may still have had into their current suppliers, if these suppliers
> are engaging in such practices.
>
> As a corollary, they cause an increasing willingness even with "kind
> of satisfied" customers to change suppliers.  This may (I hope!), in
> the long term, have the effect that competition gives certain
> registrars the necessary incentive to play by the rules.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.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: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 20:32:42 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] policy-making options

This is not true.

There is no empirical data to back this up. (maybe it applies to
participation in general list, but not membership and not participation in
WGs)

No one should buy in to this bull at all it is simply not true.  Over a year
worth of observation has shown that obnoxious participants actually
stimulate participation.

Sincerely,
Eric

Andy Gardner wrote:

> At 9:25 PM -0700 4/8/02, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >This is simply not true.  One of the most disturbing characteristics of
> >open WGs is that the obnoxious participants drive off people who might
> >otherwise participate.
>
> Agreed. Ban the IPC from working groups, and the problem will be solved.
>
> --
> Andrew P. Gardner
> barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
> We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
> Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
> --
> 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: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 23:44:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Time to regulate the Re-Sellers

I agree - the time for ICANN-accredited registrars is soon to be past. The
registries should manage the relationship at least in all new TLDs, just
so long as we have enough to make the market really competitive ...  some
issues about legacy registries perhaps having a competitive edge that
requires they be last to be deregulated.  Schedule that for 200_ (fill in
blank).

On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> Why are there ICANN accredited registars? Does this mere fact not make
> ICANN a bit responsible for what those registrars do? After all, it is a
> regulated market...
> 
> Marc
> 
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, at 14:57 [=GMT-0400], Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > It seems to me that there is a principle that could reasonably be applied
> > here:  If there are already mechanisms in place with various jurisdictions
> > around the world to deal with particular issues, then it is unnecessary for
> > ICANN to duplicate the associated functions.  For example, I believe that
> > most jurisdictions have anti-trust laws and agencies to enforce those, so it
> > is unnecessary for ICANN to get involved in anti-trust issues.  Similarly, I
> > believe that there are consumer protection mechanisms already in place in
> > most major regions of the world, so it is unnecessary for ICANN to get
> > involved in consumer protection.
> > 
> > Therefore, I agree with Michael that the "appropriate place to complain is
> > the regulatory authorities in the home of the offender" and not ICANN.
> > 
> > Chuck
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> > > [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 1:09 PM
> > > To: [email-masked]
> > > Cc: [email-masked]
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] Time to regulate the Re-Sellers
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Sure, and while we are regulating people, let's regulate 
> > > fraudulent web
> > > pages, all spammers (they use the dns, don't they), and blasphemers.
> > > 
> > > In other words, NO THANKS.  This is not ICANN's mission.  It is not a
> > > technical issue AT ALL -- it's a commercial/regulatory issue and the
> > > appropriate place to complain is the regulatory authorities 
> > > in the home of
> > > the offender.
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 9 Apr 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
> > > 
> > > > The following post has appeared on the registrars list:
> > > > 
> > > > A Registrar (most probably a reseller of ICANN accredited 
> > > Registrar) caused 
> > > > one of the most severe massive SPAMs we have ever seen. It 
> > > goes by those two 
> > > > names.
> > > > 
> > > > http://www.affordable-domains.com
> > > > http://www.renewmydomains.com
> > > > 
> > > > it took our mail server down for couple of hours today.  
> > > For those who are 
> > > > curious, two SPAM messages are attached below.  (see 
> > > > 
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02287.html 
> > >  for details).  
> > > > If one of our Resellers would do this we would terminate them.
> > > > -----------------------------------------------
> > > > 
> > > > A subsequent post to the registrar's list 
> > > > 
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02289.html 
> > > revealed that 
> > > > the reseller operates on behalf of SRSPlus... a Verisign company.
> > > > 
> > > > In my opinion, it is time to regulate the re-seller 
> > > community to the same 
> > > > degree that we regulate the activities of registrars.  If 
> > > registrars take no 
> > > > action to police their own industry, and if they are not 
> > > held accountable for 
> > > > the actions of their re-sellers, then this industry is 
> > > surely begging for the 
> > > > same type of governmental intervention that impacted the 
> > > telecommunications 
> > > > industry.   
> > > > 
> > > > I, for one, do not seek an enhanced role for governments.  
> > > It is ICANN's 
> > > > responsibility to manage the Domain Name system.  Resellers 
> > > acting as loose 
> > > > cannons do not serve this industry well, and should be 
> > > brought under control. 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > 		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> > > A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> > > U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> > > +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
> > >                         -->It's hot here.<--
> > > 
> > > --
> > > 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
> > 
> > 
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot here.<--

- --
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 #1122
*************************