Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1350
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, July 31 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1350

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:41:29 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names

Tuesday, July 30, 2002, 3:27:41 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> as proposed above?  I would think that when a registrant has found 
> himself/herself in need of the Redemption Grace Period that a fair amount of 
> enmity would exist between the registrant and the current registrar... in 
> such circumstances, might it not be appropriate to expeditiously facilitate a 
> transfer?  

I truly believe this to be a very faulty assumption.

This assumes that the registrant would blame the registrar for the
registrant's failure to properly renew their domain name.  That is
rarely ever the case.

- -- 
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: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:45:30 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & transfers

Any comment on the substance of what Ross wrote, Vint?  I think the GA
may find it helpful to hear a bit more of a reaction from you to the
points Ross makes.

This would help the members of the GA gauge what type and volume of
feedback might further be required on this subject.

Tuesday, July 30, 2002, 9:15:22 PM, vinton g. cerf wrote:

> thanks ross

> v

> At 11:22 PM 7/30/2002 -0400, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>>A further update to this document should also be published tomorrow - I will
>>be sure to pass it on.

> Vint Cerf
> SVP Architecture & Technology
> WorldCom
> 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
> Ashburn, VA 20147
> 703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
> 703 886 0047 fax

> --
> 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

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 03:01:23 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Getting to effective and meaningful... and staying focused...

Marilyn and all assembly members,

  I don't recall anyone asking for you to "Prejudge" the TF's work..
But I do believe YOU were ask a specific question.  Ergo, it is
exceedingly appropriate for YOU to provide YOUR answer
to Danny's question...  So please TRY to do the responsible
thing Marilyn...  

  Anything less would appear and in reality be so much spin or
and indication of some odd and irresponsible behavior...

  Remember, Corp. Responsibility is the
current presidents watch word...  As he said today,
"Those that are not responsible, shall be punished".

  Now, ICANN just got one legal spanking...  Let's not
be the cause of another Marilyn...

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Jeff, as chair, WHEN the TF has a position, I'll speak or we'll decide who will speak...
> it is a task force... so it may and could well be other members of the TF.
>
> and no, still not appropriate for me to prejudge work of TF.
>
> Now, I have other work to do and am headed off to do it...
>
> MC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 2:03 AM
> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Cc: dnso Tran TF list; [email-masked]; Nancy J. Victory; Don Evans; cathy
> Handley
> Subject: Re: Getting to effective and meaningful... and staying
> focused...
>
> Marilyn and all assembly members,
>
> Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>
> > Jeff,
> >
> > As chair, it is inappropriate for me to provide an 'answer' to work which the TF
> > is undertaking. I noted that Danny Younger's questions were very pertinent. And,
> > the GA rep forwarded to the TF.
>
>   Well thank you at least for forwarding Danny's very good and "pertinent"
> question to the TF...  However Danny was asking YOU specifically
> in his question, not the TF.  Common courtesy would dictate in my experience
> that YOU Marilyn should have provided AN answer even if it was not
> one that the TF supported at this time.
>
>   Hence your comment or statement regarding "Responsible Chairmanship"
> seems to ring a little off key... >:)
>
> >
> >
> > I don't prejudge the outcome of the work of the TF. When I was elected chair, I
> > noted that I intended to try to manage the process,NOT lobby the outcome. The BC
> > has a different representative than me on the TF.
>
>   Good!  This is very basically as it should be.
>
> >
> >
> > So, no, I won't be answering the question from my personal view. And, no, it isn't spin.
>
> Ah!  Well that says allot, thank you.  So than whom if not the chair, speaks
> for or can answer questions?  Does the TF have a spokesperson?  Or
> do questions such as Danny's just go unanswered...???
>
> >
>
> >
> >
> > It is responsible chairpersonship... :-)
>
>   Oh is it?  Hummm?  Well respectfully I would have to disagree based
> on my own experience, and the experience of other chairs of many other
> similar TF's, Ect., over a 23 year span...
>
> >
> >
> > So, no, you can't expect anything further from me on this until the TF delivers
> > their views.....
> >
> > You can, and should expect to see, further consideration within the TF. IF they agree
> > that this is a priority. They have a lot of work to do.  Let's be sure that we understand
> > that the TF needs to set priorities...
> >
> > I've got my priorities straight: Focus on facilitating the work of the TF to achieve
> > supportable processes and policy.
> >
> > Noise isn't a useful way to contribute... if one wants a balanced outcome, reflective
> > of the broad interests of the Internet.... Meaningful work, which includes effective outreach,
> > from well intentioned people ...is......
> >
> > Now that sounds like something you could support, Jeff.
> >
> > Marilyn
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 11:03 PM
> > To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; dnso Tran TF list
> > Cc: [email-masked]; Nancy J. Victory; Don Evans; cathy Handley
> > Subject: Marilyn Cades non-answer to: Re: [ga] RE: Redemption Grace
> > Periods for Deleted Names
> >
> > Marilyn and all assembly members,
> >
> >   You didn't answer Danny's question at all Marilyn.  Why is that
> > I wonder???  Could you please directly answer Danny's question
> > Marilyn?  Or can we expect more spin in your responses to questions?
> > Please advise.
> >
> > Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> >
> > > Excellent questions. Dan, can you forward to the Transfer Task Force?
> > >
> > > Thanks... good idea to address this very early... we had just started trying
> > > to sort through the linkage, Danny, but your insights are very helpful.
> > >
> > > Marilyn
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 6:28 PM
> > > To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> > > Cc: [email-masked]
> > > Subject: Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names
> > >
> > > Marilyn,
> > >
> > > I have a question regarding one aspect of the work of your Transfers Task
> > > Force concerning inter-registrar transfers during the Delete Pending period.
> > >
> > > The Technical Steering Group's Implementation Proposal "determined that it
> > > would not be practical to implement inter-registrar transfers of deleted
> > > names in Stage 1. Instead, it is proposed that six months after this
> > > Redemption Grace Period Proposal is adopted, ICANN's President should
> > > re-convene this (or a similar) Technical Steering Group to review the
> > > implementation of the Redemption Grace Period, to suggest possible
> > > improvements to the Redemption Grace Period, and to develop a specification
> > > for Stage 2 of the implementation of the Redemption Grace Period, which will
> > > enable registrants to choose the �EURoerestoring�EUR� registrar.'
> > >
> > > The Technical Steering Group believed that "allowing registrants to choose
> > > the redeeming registrar will introduce numerous technical and operational
> > > complications into the system", and "that the best course of action would be
> > > to reserve implementation of registrar choice until a second stage".
> > >
> > > Do the members of your TF share the assessment of the Technical Steering
> > > Group that such considerations should be postponed another six months?  Will
> > > your TF examine this issue, or will it defer the matter to the Steering Group
> > > as proposed above?  I would think that when a registrant has found
> > > himself/herself in need of the Redemption Grace Period that a fair amount of
> > > enmity would exist between the registrant and the current registrar... in
> > > such circumstances, might it not be appropriate to expeditiously facilitate a
> > > transfer?
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
> > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > E-Mail [email-masked]
> > Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
> --
> 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

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
- --
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, 31 Jul 2002 17:31:49 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & transfers

At 09:37 p.m. 30/07/2002 -0400, vinton g. cerf wrote:

>the information I have seems to show that these specifics are in the
>contract between registrars and registry at least for the particular
>case of .com/.net/.org so ICANN does not have 3rd party standing to
>intervene for that case. The newer gTLD contracts are a bit more
>refined.

The newer gTLD contracts do they include the ccTLD's that Verisign has 
bought? (.tv  .bz e.a.)
<snip>

>It looks so me as if we need something more refined than dis-
>accreditation as the principal tool providing incentive to adhere
>to contract terms.

fines?

And to whom will the cost of both the policing and the compliance be passed on?

- --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: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 05:01:15 -0400
From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & transfers

At 05:31 PM 7/31/2002 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>At 09:37 p.m. 30/07/2002 -0400, vinton g. cerf wrote:
>
>>the information I have seems to show that these specifics are in the
>>contract between registrars and registry at least for the particular
>>case of .com/.net/.org so ICANN does not have 3rd party standing to
>>intervene for that case. The newer gTLD contracts are a bit more
>>refined.
>
>The newer gTLD contracts do they include the ccTLD's that Verisign has bought? (.tv  .bz e.a.)
><snip>

no I don't think so becaue VeriSign is not under contract to ICANN to operate these -
it is under contract to whoever is responsible for those ccTLDs.

>>It looks so me as if we need something more refined than dis-
>>accreditation as the principal tool providing incentive to adhere
>>to contract terms.
>
>fines?
>
>And to whom will the cost of both the policing and the compliance be passed on?

that's one of the reasons there probably are no more refined mechanisms 

>--Joop

Vint Cerf
SVP Architecture & Technology
WorldCom
22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
Ashburn, VA 20147
703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
703 886 0047 fax

- --
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, 31 Jul 2002 02:30:47 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & transfers

Ross,

After a fairly careful review of your positions I would like to add some comment
regarding public policy and contracting.

My last understanding is that 48 states, (New Hampshire and Louisiana
withstanding), Mexico, France, Vietnam and Australia and Canada will hold any
contract in violation of public policy void or voidable.  Determining public
policy may be a complicated court matter, indeed in the Cavebear vs ICANN case
they may determine that public policy dictates that provisions regarding
disclosure or lack thereof are out of line and void.  It is easy when we have
direct laws that deal with such concepts, but when we are lacking in legislative
direction we must look to accepted professional bodies to determine proper
standard - and there is the rub.  The Internet has acceptable professional
bodies that in all truth suck air in policy matters.
So I ask that you review your positions with a definitive view toward
establishing exactly what is the policy which you seek to invoke and on what
basis that was determined.
I applaud your efforts and only hope that you make them more ironclad.

Sincerely,
Eric

"Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:

> > the information I have seems to show that these specifics are in the
> > contract between registrars and registry at least for the particular
> > case of .com/.net/.org so ICANN does not have 3rd party standing to
> > intervene for that case. The newer gTLD contracts are a bit more
> > refined.
>
> But isn't it the case that II.20 of the .com Registry Agreement binds
> Verisign to provide access to the SRS in accordance with the terms of the
> Registry/Registrar Agreement? Being a layperson, this is just a guess, but
> my read indicates that ICANN does indeed have privity based solely on this
> clause
> (http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-com-25may01.htm
> #II-19) If this is the case, then ICANN most certainly does have the
> standing to influence the resolution (through legal or other means...)
>
> The true shame to this entire issue is that this same clause spells out very
> clearly that the Registry Operator can amend the Registry/Registrar
> Agreement (and do wonderful things like close loopholes that allow
> Registrars to engage in transfer hijinks) as long as ICANN signs off on
> them. While Registries have exhibited varying degrees of interest in this
> issue at different times - none of them have jumped in front of this issue
> and pushed for resolution. One can continue to hope I suppose ;)
>
> > It looks so me as if we need something more refined than dis-
> > accreditation as the principal tool providing incentive to adhere
> > to contract terms.
>
> We've written a discussion paper that describes a possible solution to the
> "blunt instrument" problem you describe (along the lines of PDG's
> suggestion). You can find a copy of it here -
> http://www.byte.org/heathrow/icann-reform-cda-v0r0d1-062602.html - The basic
> premise of the document is that "...contracted parties and contractual
> issues are not adequately separated from policy formulation and provided
> separate institutional solutions. The focus of ICANN will remain on policy
> development. The blind spot, as we see it, concerns the absence of provision
> for contracted parties to sort out their disputes effectively within the
> ICANN framework. These disputes are at the core of the registration
> business. They are of intense interest to few parties, such as registrars
> and registries, and of considerable interest to domain-name registrants."
>
> A further update to this document should also be published tomorrow - I will
> be sure to pass it on.
>
> -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

- --
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, 31 Jul 2002 02:58:09 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & transfers

Vinton,

Thank you for contributing your thoughts.

Eric

"vinton g. cerf" wrote:

> At 05:31 PM 7/31/2002 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >At 09:37 p.m. 30/07/2002 -0400, vinton g. cerf wrote:
> >
> >>the information I have seems to show that these specifics are in the
> >>contract between registrars and registry at least for the particular
> >>case of .com/.net/.org so ICANN does not have 3rd party standing to
> >>intervene for that case. The newer gTLD contracts are a bit more
> >>refined.
> >
> >The newer gTLD contracts do they include the ccTLD's that Verisign has bought? (.tv  .bz e.a.)
> ><snip>
>
> no I don't think so becaue VeriSign is not under contract to ICANN to operate these -
> it is under contract to whoever is responsible for those ccTLDs.
>
> >>It looks so me as if we need something more refined than dis-
> >>accreditation as the principal tool providing incentive to adhere
> >>to contract terms.
> >
> >fines?
> >
> >And to whom will the cost of both the policing and the compliance be passed on?
>
> that's one of the reasons there probably are no more refined mechanisms
>
> >--Joop
>
> Vint Cerf
> SVP Architecture & Technology
> WorldCom
> 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
> Ashburn, VA 20147
> 703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
> 703 886 0047 fax
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 06:42:32 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names

At 10:41 PM 30/07/02 -0700, William X Walsh wrote:

>I truly believe this to be a very faulty assumption.
>
>This assumes that the registrant would blame the
>registrar for the registrant's failure to properly
>renew their domain name.  That is rarely ever the case.

Even if you're saying that it was the registrant's
fault *and* the registrant knows it was their fault,
some of them will blame the registrar. Anyone who
has ever dealt with customers knows that. If it was
the registrant's fault *and* they don't know it was
their fault, then even more of them would blame the
registrar. If it was the registrar's fault, then
of course even more registrants would blame the
registrar. I don't think these are faulty assumptions.

Nor is it likely rare, though I don't have any more
access to all the data than you do, so I won't make
such a definitive statement. -g

- --
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, 31 Jul 2002 10:04:26 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Principles and Processes for Gaining and Losing Registrars

Ross,

Since apparently no one on the Transfers Task Force has ever taken up your 
call to discuss within the TF the "Principles and Processes for Gaining and 
Losing Registrars", a document that took several months of intense effort by 
the registrars to prepare (and which has been available to the TF since 29 
October 2001), perhaps we could discuss this document on the GA list.  I have 
concerns which stem from the approach being considered, and would ask you to 
review the following section:

13)  "If the Losing Registrar chooses not to honor all transfer requests from 
the Gaining Registrar pursuant to section 12, the Losing Registrar must 
provide the Gaining Registrar with a written statement describing the 
specific minimum standards and/or processes set forth in this document that 
the Gaining Registrar must comply with in order that the Losing Registrar may 
resume honoring transfer requests from the Gaining Registrar."
http://www.icann-registrars.org/pdfs/rc-irdx-091801-v1r0d8.PDF 

It strikes me that under this proposal while the competing registrars are 
busy throwing punches at each other, registrants will be unable to have their 
transfers processed.  While this may serve the needs of certain registrars, 
registrants should not be held hostage to the registrar community while you 
folks thrash out your differences.  Would you mind going back to the drawing 
table and drafting some protections for the registrant community in the event 
of disputes between gaining and losing registrars?
- --
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, 31 Jul 2002 07:35:00 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names

Wednesday, July 31, 2002, 6:42:32 AM, Gary Osbourne wrote:
> Even if you're saying that it was the registrant's
> fault *and* the registrant knows it was their fault,
> some of them will blame the registrar.

Some, but not very many at all. I'm talking real world experience
here.

> Nor is it likely rare, though I don't have any more
> access to all the data than you do, so I won't make
> such a definitive statement. -g

I have access to personal experience with customers in this situation.

- -- 
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: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 08:17:40 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names

At 07:35 AM 31/07/02 -0700, William X Walsh wrote:

>Some, but not very many at all. I'm talking real
>world experience here.

While it may not be as extensive as yours in the
same area, so am I. All sorts of people are pissed
at registrars for all sorts of reasons on a
regular basis. Some registrars more than others
of course.

>I have access to personal experience with
>customers in this situation.

I'm aware of that. That's why I said you don't have
access to all the data to make a definitive statement.
SFAIK, you also don't work for Verisign registrar. -g

- --
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, 31 Jul 2002 11:05:46 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Principles and Processes for Gaining and Losing Registrars

I've never been personally comfortable with this clause. It is too
entirely binary to be effective in practice. I would throw the question
back to the GA as to how Registrars could best protect themselves and
their Registrants in situations where the Gaining Registrar is clearly
acting against the interests of the Registrant, has not appropriately
implemented the processes described etc.

I'd be pleased to take any and all suggestions back to the table for
review and refinement...

> 13)  "If the Losing Registrar chooses not to honor all 
> transfer requests from 
> the Gaining Registrar pursuant to section 12, the Losing 
> Registrar must 
> provide the Gaining Registrar with a written statement describing the 
> specific minimum standards and/or processes set forth in this 
> document that 
> the Gaining Registrar must comply with in order that the 
> Losing Registrar may 
> resume honoring transfer requests from the Gaining 
> Registrar." 
> http://www.icann-registrars.org/pdfs/rc-irdx-091801-v1r0d8.PDF

It strikes me that under this proposal while the competing registrars
are 
busy throwing punches at each other, registrants will be unable to have
their 
transfers processed.  While this may serve the needs of certain
registrars, 
registrants should not be held hostage to the registrar community while
you 
folks thrash out your differences.  Would you mind going back to the
drawing 
table and drafting some protections for the registrant community in the
event 
of disputes between gaining and losing registrars?

- --
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, 31 Jul 2002 10:48:38 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & transfers

Tuesday, July 30, 2002, 8:37:31 PM, vinton g. cerf <[email-masked]> wrote:
[SNIP]

vgc> It looks so me as if we need something more refined than dis-
vgc> accreditation as the principal tool providing incentive to adhere
vgc> to contract terms. 

vgc> v

Why? Breach is Breach. There is nothing that says you Can't give
notice and allow a period of time for the Registrar to Cure it. In
fact, most contracts provide for a notice and cure period.

You seem to be looking for reasons not to even try to fix this
transfer problem.

Today, we have a transfer problem caused by only one Registrar.  Left
unchecked, what can we reasonably expect in the future?

ICANN has, at the very least, an obligation to all of the Other
Registrars who are following the Rules, to at least try to intervene
and stop this practice. Moreover, ICANN has an obligation to the
grass-roots Domain Registrants who are being punished and deceived.

It's ICANN's job.

Thanks,

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
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, 31 Jul 2002 12:02:31 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Principles and Processes for Gaining and Losing Registrars

Ross,

In your "Draft Proposal and Request for Comments Concerning ICANN’s Role in 
Relation to Contracted Parties", you have proposed the establishment of an 
inter-ICANN adjudication body to deal with dispute resolution between bodies 
under contract with ICANN.  My first thought would be to propose enabling 
transfers as a default condition, and leaving it up to this adjudication unit 
to resolve the process implementation issues between the gaining and losing 
registrars.  

I am looking forward to your newest iteration of this draft. 
- --
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, 31 Jul 2002 11:29:29 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & transfers

Wednesday, July 31, 2002, 4:01:15 AM, vinton g. cerf <[email-masked]> wrote:
vgc> At 05:31 PM 7/31/2002 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>>At 09:37 p.m. 30/07/2002 -0400, vinton g. cerf wrote:
[SNIP]
>>>It looks so me as if we need something more refined than dis-
>>>accreditation as the principal tool providing incentive to adhere
>>>to contract terms.
>>
>>fines?
>>
>>And to whom will the cost of both the policing and the compliance be passed on?
>>--Joop

vgc> that's one of the reasons there probably are no more refined mechanisms

You're saying that ICANN intentionally set themselves up as a paper
tiger and intentionally circumscribed their contractual rights because
of doubts over potential, future funding issues?  That makes absolutely
no business sense or common sense.

Furthermore, this has nothing to do with the costs of policing, (which
I fail to see a requirement for, anyway) or the costs of contract
compliance or even the costs of contract administration.

In contrast, this a contractual performance issue, where the other
party is INTENTIONALLY performing contrary to contractual requirements
and in TOTAL DISREGARD to its obligations under the contract.

Are you telling us that ICANN has no contractual rights to require
specific performance under its contracts?

ICANN's continued inaction to rectify this transfer problem is a
disservice to all of the other Registrars who are compliant and it is
particularly a disservice to the grass-roots domain Registrants who
are being punished and deceived.

Thanks,

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
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, 31 Jul 2002 10:08:50 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & transfers

We must not walk down this Alice in wonderland Tea party path.
Transfers are simple in the technical realm.
Contracts and procedure are easy.
The indications of difficulty is buffoonery.
As Don makes clear a breach is a breach.
I am a spin doctor but this suggestion of complication is a spin to the
max.
Just give your word and live and die by it.
ICANN remains unaccountable.

Eric

Don Brown wrote:

> Tuesday, July 30, 2002, 8:37:31 PM, vinton g. cerf <[email-masked]> wrote:
> [SNIP]
>
> vgc> It looks so me as if we need something more refined than dis-
> vgc> accreditation as the principal tool providing incentive to adhere
> vgc> to contract terms.
>
> vgc> v
>
> Why? Breach is Breach. There is nothing that says you Can't give
> notice and allow a period of time for the Registrar to Cure it. In
> fact, most contracts provide for a notice and cure period.
>
> You seem to be looking for reasons not to even try to fix this
> transfer problem.
>
> Today, we have a transfer problem caused by only one Registrar.  Left
> unchecked, what can we reasonably expect in the future?
>
> ICANN has, at the very least, an obligation to all of the Other
> Registrars who are following the Rules, to at least try to intervene
> and stop this practice. Moreover, ICANN has an obligation to the
> grass-roots Domain Registrants who are being punished and deceived.
>
> It's ICANN's job.
>
> Thanks,
>
> ----
> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
> [email-masked]        http://www.inetconcepts.net
> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> ----
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:38:32 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & transfers

Wednesday, July 31, 2002, 11:35:46 AM, vinton g. cerf <[email-masked]> wrote:
vgc> don, the only remedy if cure fails is disaccreditation - I was
vgc> speculating that something in addition to that nuclear tool might
vgc> be useful.

vgc> vint

The other party has the obligation to perform. They are
"intentionally" not performing and they are "intentionally" ignoring
their obligations.

You have no duty to be empathetic and there is certainly no reason for
empathy under these circumstances. Besides, they knew full well to
what they were obligating themselves, as they know full well that they
are "intentionally" not discharging certain of those obligations.

If disaccreditation is the only remedy available, then that makes the
decision process clear: (1) Notify them of the remedy available and
ask them to cure by a date certain; or, (2) Do nothing.

If the result is, in fact, disaccreditation, (which I doubt), then
that will have been "their" choice.

Nothing says that the parties can't negotiate during this process,
either.  You don't need any other tools.

ICANN's obligation or empathy for a single Registrar is significantly
over-shadowed by it's much larger obligation to the rest of the
Internet community. Therefore, doing nothing is the worst choice
available to ICANN.

This started as a transfer problem, due to non-performance, but it is
clearly evolving into an ICANN accountability issue.

I think it is past due for ICANN to do something positive and
proactive to resolve this non-performance issue, rather than
continuing to proffer excuses and otherwise do nothing. It is ICANN's
job and its responsibility.

Thanks,

vgc> At 10:48 AM 7/31/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>>Tuesday, July 30, 2002, 8:37:31 PM, vinton g. cerf <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>[SNIP]
>>
>>vgc> It looks so me as if we need something more refined than dis-
>>vgc> accreditation as the principal tool providing incentive to adhere
>>vgc> to contract terms. 
>>
>>vgc> v
>>
>>Why? Breach is Breach. There is nothing that says you Can't give
>>notice and allow a period of time for the Registrar to Cure it. In
>>fact, most contracts provide for a notice and cure period.
>>
>>You seem to be looking for reasons not to even try to fix this
>>transfer problem.
>>
>>Today, we have a transfer problem caused by only one Registrar.  Left
>>unchecked, what can we reasonably expect in the future?
>>
>>ICANN has, at the very least, an obligation to all of the Other
>>Registrars who are following the Rules, to at least try to intervene
>>and stop this practice. Moreover, ICANN has an obligation to the
>>grass-roots Domain Registrants who are being punished and deceived.
>>
>>It's ICANN's job.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>----
>>Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
>>[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
>>PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
>>Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
>>----

vgc> Vint Cerf
vgc> SVP Architecture & Technology
vgc> WorldCom
vgc> 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
vgc> Ashburn, VA 20147
vgc> 703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
vgc> 703 886 0047 fax

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
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 #1350
*************************