Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1481
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, October 22 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1481

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

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 10:26:51 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Legal Briefing

Michael,

You are doubtless aware that I hold no particular fondness for the Task Force 
concept which serves to limit participation rather than encouraging 
participation and substantive contributions.  We again now find ourselves at 
a point where after initial recommendations have been made, those that 
haven't had a chance to participate in the policy development process now 
take issue with the recommendations studiously developed by their peers 
(bringing us back to square one).  

While you have called for the rejection of the WHOIS Task Force interim 
recommendations deeming them to be inconsistent with ICANN’s existing 
contractual obligations, a violation of ICANN’s mission and core values, in 
conflict with existing technical and market realities, and constituting a 
treat to the stability of the Internet, I would note that the registrar 
constituency does indeed have a representative assigned to the WHOIS Task 
Force, Ken Stubbs, and that I am not aware of any such issues being raised by 
Ken on the Task Force Discussion List.

This raises the following questions:

1.  Why aren't members of the registrar constituency following the policy 
development process within the TF, interacting with their 
representative-of-record on the Task Force, and instructing him to post their 
comments to the list for consideration by other stakeholders prior to the 
publication of an Interim Report?
2.  Why hasn't your representative raised such issues for discussion on the 
TF list if they indeed are of the magnitude that you describe and are of such 
great concern to the constituency?
3.  Why do your members find it necessary to go straight to either yourself 
or to ICANN staff with their complaints and concerns rather than going to 
their TF representative so that issues might be addressed in mutual 
consultation prior to arriving at what is now the Interim Report stage?

What I am seeing is more of an attempt to derail a process than to cooperate 
within the process itself.  Constantly going back to square one serves 
nobody's interests.  If the process itself is flawed, then perhaps we need to 
take another hard look at the process and consider appropriate changes before 
we again head down this profitless road, but acting to do no more than trash 
the work of others that have diligently cooperated for well over a year to 
arrive at recommendations is not the best possible way forward.

Best regards,
Danny

- --
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: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 12:18:14 -0400
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Legal Briefing

Danny:

Not to sound like an attorney, but there is no contractual requirement that registrars or registries participate in the DNSO, or its processes. Regardless of the level of participation by either registrars or registries, such action or inaction does not waive the contractual rights contained in their contracts. Although I will work on a more detailed response to your questions below during my flight to China, I wanted to give you some quick answers.

Question 1: The Registrar Constituency hase had a sort of revolving door of representation in the Whois task force. Although Paul Kane was an initial registrar advocate we have had several representatives serving on this Task Force: Philip, Ken and Tim. Although some people may find this hard to believe, but registrars do have businesses to run and they are not always able to devote the necessary resources to play in the DNSO's policy sandbox that other people seem to have. I think Ross has been doing a good job of advocating the registrar position on the Transfer's Task Force. However, as I previously noted as the final recommendations become clearer there is a growing number of registrars expressing concern about certain recommendations. I do not believe that the registrars nor the registries are trying to force the Task Force back to square one. All I believe they are trying to do is ensure that their contractual safeguards are preserved. 

Question 2: The Executive Committee delegates the responsibilities of representing the registrars viewpoints to specific representatives. They periodically report to the constituency and the executive committee on their progress. When a final report is available it is put forth to the constituency for a vote. Unlike other constituencies that fail to delegate responsibilities to other members, I do not specifically know what has or has not been stated to the Task Forces. All I know is what has been communicated to me via email, in person meetings, teleconferences, etc. Not all communication within the registrar constituency occurs on the listserv. 

Question 3: I cannot say with certainty why registrar come to me. Maybe because I tend to listen and recommend a reasonable and prudent course of action based upon the facts and the binding contracts. Registrars and registries may chose to contact Louis because he is the general counsel of ICANN and registrars and registries have contracts with ICANN. Speaking for myself, I contacted Steve Metalitz and raised a number of concerns regarding some of the initial recommendations in an earlier Whois draft report. This was followed up with some discussions with my registry counterparts. Based upon this discussion I am writing a formal response to the Whois Task Force showing what I believe is serious fundamental flaws in the report, as well as potential recommendations for moving forward with a solution to the problem. 

I guess one of the biggest reasons why people choose not to actively participate in the DNSO processes is that there is so much noise on the task force and mailing lists, that they prefer to sit back and rely upon the contracts they entered into in good faith. The same contracts that allow them to employ people, pay rent and taxes, etc. I know this is definitely not the answer you were looking for but it is part of the reality we live in.

Best regards,

Mike

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 10:27 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Legal Briefing

Michael,

You are doubtless aware that I hold no particular fondness for the Task Force 
concept which serves to limit participation rather than encouraging 
participation and substantive contributions.  We again now find ourselves at 
a point where after initial recommendations have been made, those that 
haven't had a chance to participate in the policy development process now 
take issue with the recommendations studiously developed by their peers 
(bringing us back to square one).  

While you have called for the rejection of the WHOIS Task Force interim 
recommendations deeming them to be inconsistent with ICANN’s existing 
contractual obligations, a violation of ICANN’s mission and core values, in 
conflict with existing technical and market realities, and constituting a 
treat to the stability of the Internet, I would note that the registrar 
constituency does indeed have a representative assigned to the WHOIS Task 
Force, Ken Stubbs, and that I am not aware of any such issues being raised by 
Ken on the Task Force Discussion List.

This raises the following questions:

1.  Why aren't members of the registrar constituency following the policy 
development process within the TF, interacting with their 
representative-of-record on the Task Force, and instructing him to post their 
comments to the list for consideration by other stakeholders prior to the 
publication of an Interim Report?
2.  Why hasn't your representative raised such issues for discussion on the 
TF list if they indeed are of the magnitude that you describe and are of such 
great concern to the constituency?
3.  Why do your members find it necessary to go straight to either yourself 
or to ICANN staff with their complaints and concerns rather than going to 
their TF representative so that issues might be addressed in mutual 
consultation prior to arriving at what is now the Interim Report stage?

What I am seeing is more of an attempt to derail a process than to cooperate 
within the process itself.  Constantly going back to square one serves 
nobody's interests.  If the process itself is flawed, then perhaps we need to 
take another hard look at the process and consider appropriate changes before 
we again head down this profitless road, but acting to do no more than trash 
the work of others that have diligently cooperated for well over a year to 
arrive at recommendations is not the best possible way forward.

Best regards,
Danny

- --
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: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 14:13:41 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Legal Briefing

Michael,

Perhaps we can move from the general to the specific.  Which recommendations 
are the source of the greatest concern and why?
- --
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: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:29:25 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Legal Briefing

Damn fine show here,
In our work we say that "Marketing is education, and education is Marketing"
I feel educated and marketed by this fine explanation of Registrars workings.

The use of the term advocate was most educational.  We here in the GA only have representatives.
How come they get advocates?  I am glad to see that Louis has a direct line with registrars and no line what so ever with users.  Makes sense.
Unlike these highly important registrars and registries we will continue to have direct communication with users. And we will reserve the time necessary to provide service through effective communication skills.
It is quite funny that the people who actually pay the money to the company are not considered important in the running of the business.  Go Figure!
Can you spell  M-O-N-O-P-O-L-I-E-S???
e

"Michael D. Palage" wrote:

> Danny:
>
> Not to sound like an attorney, but there is no contractual requirement that registrars or registries participate in the DNSO, or its processes. Regardless of the level of participation by either registrars or registries, such action or inaction does not waive the contractual rights contained in their contracts. Although I will work on a more detailed response to your questions below during my flight to China, I wanted to give you some quick answers.
>
> Question 1: The Registrar Constituency hase had a sort of revolving door of representation in the Whois task force. Although Paul Kane was an initial registrar advocate we have had several representatives serving on this Task Force: Philip, Ken and Tim. Although some people may find this hard to believe, but registrars do have businesses to run and they are not always able to devote the necessary resources to play in the DNSO's policy sandbox that other people seem to have. I think Ross has been doing a good job of advocating the registrar position on the Transfer's Task Force. However, as I previously noted as the final recommendations become clearer there is a growing number of registrars expressing concern about certain recommendations. I do not believe that the registrars nor the registries are trying to force the Task Force back to square one. All I believe they are trying to do is ensure that their contractual safeguards are preserved.
>
> Question 2: The Executive Committee delegates the responsibilities of representing the registrars viewpoints to specific representatives. They periodically report to the constituency and the executive committee on their progress. When a final report is available it is put forth to the constituency for a vote. Unlike other constituencies that fail to delegate responsibilities to other members, I do not specifically know what has or has not been stated to the Task Forces. All I know is what has been communicated to me via email, in person meetings, teleconferences, etc. Not all communication within the registrar constituency occurs on the listserv.
>
> Question 3: I cannot say with certainty why registrar come to me. Maybe because I tend to listen and recommend a reasonable and prudent course of action based upon the facts and the binding contracts. Registrars and registries may chose to contact Louis because he is the general counsel of ICANN and registrars and registries have contracts with ICANN. Speaking for myself, I contacted Steve Metalitz and raised a number of concerns regarding some of the initial recommendations in an earlier Whois draft report. This was followed up with some discussions with my registry counterparts. Based upon this discussion I am writing a formal response to the Whois Task Force showing what I believe is serious fundamental flaws in the report, as well as potential recommendations for moving forward with a solution to the problem.
>
> I guess one of the biggest reasons why people choose not to actively participate in the DNSO processes is that there is so much noise on the task force and mailing lists, that they prefer to sit back and rely upon the contracts they entered into in good faith. The same contracts that allow them to employ people, pay rent and taxes, etc. I know this is definitely not the answer you were looking for but it is part of the reality we live in.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 10:27 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Legal Briefing
>
> Michael,
>
> You are doubtless aware that I hold no particular fondness for the Task Force
> concept which serves to limit participation rather than encouraging
> participation and substantive contributions.  We again now find ourselves at
> a point where after initial recommendations have been made, those that
> haven't had a chance to participate in the policy development process now
> take issue with the recommendations studiously developed by their peers
> (bringing us back to square one).
>
> While you have called for the rejection of the WHOIS Task Force interim
> recommendations deeming them to be inconsistent with ICANN’s existing
> contractual obligations, a violation of ICANN’s mission and core values, in
> conflict with existing technical and market realities, and constituting a
> treat to the stability of the Internet, I would note that the registrar
> constituency does indeed have a representative assigned to the WHOIS Task
> Force, Ken Stubbs, and that I am not aware of any such issues being raised by
> Ken on the Task Force Discussion List.
>
> This raises the following questions:
>
> 1.  Why aren't members of the registrar constituency following the policy
> development process within the TF, interacting with their
> representative-of-record on the Task Force, and instructing him to post their
> comments to the list for consideration by other stakeholders prior to the
> publication of an Interim Report?
> 2.  Why hasn't your representative raised such issues for discussion on the
> TF list if they indeed are of the magnitude that you describe and are of such
> great concern to the constituency?
> 3.  Why do your members find it necessary to go straight to either yourself
> or to ICANN staff with their complaints and concerns rather than going to
> their TF representative so that issues might be addressed in mutual
> consultation prior to arriving at what is now the Interim Report stage?
>
> What I am seeing is more of an attempt to derail a process than to cooperate
> within the process itself.  Constantly going back to square one serves
> nobody's interests.  If the process itself is flawed, then perhaps we need to
> take another hard look at the process and consider appropriate changes before
> we again head down this profitless road, but acting to do no more than trash
> the work of others that have diligently cooperated for well over a year to
> arrive at recommendations is not the best possible way forward.
>
> Best regards,
> Danny
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 14:25:43 -0400
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Legal Briefing

Specific concerns, and specific recommendations will be forth coming in my
posting tomorrow.

Mike

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 2:14 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Legal Briefing

Michael,

Perhaps we can move from the general to the specific.  Which recommendations
are the source of the greatest concern and why?

- --
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: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 14:55:21 -0400
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Legal Briefing

Eric:

I think this thread provides a classic example of why contracting parties
tend to avoid the noise of ICANN Policy efforts. However, since I never shy
away from running around in an open field during a lighting storm swinging a
golf club, let me continue.

I submit that the divergent viewpoints of registries and registrars are self
evident that no consensus exists on some of these complex issues.
Additionally, if in fact there was a monopoly as you allege, the registries
and registrars would be in lock step regarding these proposals.

I never said that people and businesses that register and use domain names
are not important. They in fact have the ultimate responsibility of speaking
with their wallet in choosing their registrar of record and what tld they
register in.

Mike

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 2:29 PM
To: Michael D. Palage
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Legal Briefing

Damn fine show here,
In our work we say that "Marketing is education, and education is Marketing"
I feel educated and marketed by this fine explanation of Registrars
workings.

The use of the term advocate was most educational.  We here in the GA only
have representatives.
How come they get advocates?  I am glad to see that Louis has a direct line
with registrars and no line what so ever with users.  Makes sense.
Unlike these highly important registrars and registries we will continue to
have direct communication with users. And we will reserve the time necessary
to provide service through effective communication skills.
It is quite funny that the people who actually pay the money to the company
are not considered important in the running of the business.  Go Figure!
Can you spell  M-O-N-O-P-O-L-I-E-S???
e

"Michael D. Palage" wrote:

> Danny:
>
> Not to sound like an attorney, but there is no contractual requirement
that registrars or registries participate in the DNSO, or its processes.
Regardless of the level of participation by either registrars or registries,
such action or inaction does not waive the contractual rights contained in
their contracts. Although I will work on a more detailed response to your
questions below during my flight to China, I wanted to give you some quick
answers.
>
> Question 1: The Registrar Constituency hase had a sort of revolving door
of representation in the Whois task force. Although Paul Kane was an initial
registrar advocate we have had several representatives serving on this Task
Force: Philip, Ken and Tim. Although some people may find this hard to
believe, but registrars do have businesses to run and they are not always
able to devote the necessary resources to play in the DNSO's policy sandbox
that other people seem to have. I think Ross has been doing a good job of
advocating the registrar position on the Transfer's Task Force. However, as
I previously noted as the final recommendations become clearer there is a
growing number of registrars expressing concern about certain
recommendations. I do not believe that the registrars nor the registries are
trying to force the Task Force back to square one. All I believe they are
trying to do is ensure that their contractual safeguards are preserved.
>
> Question 2: The Executive Committee delegates the responsibilities of
representing the registrars viewpoints to specific representatives. They
periodically report to the constituency and the executive committee on their
progress. When a final report is available it is put forth to the
constituency for a vote. Unlike other constituencies that fail to delegate
responsibilities to other members, I do not specifically know what has or
has not been stated to the Task Forces. All I know is what has been
communicated to me via email, in person meetings, teleconferences, etc. Not
all communication within the registrar constituency occurs on the listserv.
>
> Question 3: I cannot say with certainty why registrar come to me. Maybe
because I tend to listen and recommend a reasonable and prudent course of
action based upon the facts and the binding contracts. Registrars and
registries may chose to contact Louis because he is the general counsel of
ICANN and registrars and registries have contracts with ICANN. Speaking for
myself, I contacted Steve Metalitz and raised a number of concerns regarding
some of the initial recommendations in an earlier Whois draft report. This
was followed up with some discussions with my registry counterparts. Based
upon this discussion I am writing a formal response to the Whois Task Force
showing what I believe is serious fundamental flaws in the report, as well
as potential recommendations for moving forward with a solution to the
problem.
>
> I guess one of the biggest reasons why people choose not to actively
participate in the DNSO processes is that there is so much noise on the task
force and mailing lists, that they prefer to sit back and rely upon the
contracts they entered into in good faith. The same contracts that allow
them to employ people, pay rent and taxes, etc. I know this is definitely
not the answer you were looking for but it is part of the reality we live
in.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 10:27 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Legal Briefing
>
> Michael,
>
> You are doubtless aware that I hold no particular fondness for the Task
Force
> concept which serves to limit participation rather than encouraging
> participation and substantive contributions.  We again now find ourselves
at
> a point where after initial recommendations have been made, those that
> haven't had a chance to participate in the policy development process now
> take issue with the recommendations studiously developed by their peers
> (bringing us back to square one).
>
> While you have called for the rejection of the WHOIS Task Force interim
> recommendations deeming them to be inconsistent with ICANN’s existing
> contractual obligations, a violation of ICANN’s mission and core values,
in
> conflict with existing technical and market realities, and constituting a
> treat to the stability of the Internet, I would note that the registrar
> constituency does indeed have a representative assigned to the WHOIS Task
> Force, Ken Stubbs, and that I am not aware of any such issues being raised
by
> Ken on the Task Force Discussion List.
>
> This raises the following questions:
>
> 1.  Why aren't members of the registrar constituency following the policy
> development process within the TF, interacting with their
> representative-of-record on the Task Force, and instructing him to post
their
> comments to the list for consideration by other stakeholders prior to the
> publication of an Interim Report?
> 2.  Why hasn't your representative raised such issues for discussion on
the
> TF list if they indeed are of the magnitude that you describe and are of
such
> great concern to the constituency?
> 3.  Why do your members find it necessary to go straight to either
yourself
> or to ICANN staff with their complaints and concerns rather than going to
> their TF representative so that issues might be addressed in mutual
> consultation prior to arriving at what is now the Interim Report stage?
>
> What I am seeing is more of an attempt to derail a process than to
cooperate
> within the process itself.  Constantly going back to square one serves
> nobody's interests.  If the process itself is flawed, then perhaps we need
to
> take another hard look at the process and consider appropriate changes
before
> we again head down this profitless road, but acting to do no more than
trash
> the work of others that have diligently cooperated for well over a year to
> arrive at recommendations is not the best possible way forward.
>
> Best regards,
> Danny
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 12:29:10 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Legal Briefing

You just may be my free enterprise hero of the month.
I think you are right.
I could well be wrong.
Your words are well spoken and the truth will be self evident.

hey i have my old network solutions shirt on the chair and my ICANN 2001 t-shirt
on.
What channel are the Shanghai meetings on?
I look forward to the kick off and half time party.
e

"Michael D. Palage" wrote:

> Eric:
>
> I think this thread provides a classic example of why contracting parties
> tend to avoid the noise of ICANN Policy efforts. However, since I never shy
> away from running around in an open field during a lighting storm swinging a
> golf club, let me continue.
>
> I submit that the divergent viewpoints of registries and registrars are self
> evident that no consensus exists on some of these complex issues.
> Additionally, if in fact there was a monopoly as you allege, the registries
> and registrars would be in lock step regarding these proposals.
>
> I never said that people and businesses that register and use domain names
> are not important. They in fact have the ultimate responsibility of speaking
> with their wallet in choosing their registrar of record and what tld they
> register in.
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 2:29 PM
> To: Michael D. Palage
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Legal Briefing
>
> Damn fine show here,
> In our work we say that "Marketing is education, and education is Marketing"
> I feel educated and marketed by this fine explanation of Registrars
> workings.
>
> The use of the term advocate was most educational.  We here in the GA only
> have representatives.
> How come they get advocates?  I am glad to see that Louis has a direct line
> with registrars and no line what so ever with users.  Makes sense.
> Unlike these highly important registrars and registries we will continue to
> have direct communication with users. And we will reserve the time necessary
> to provide service through effective communication skills.
> It is quite funny that the people who actually pay the money to the company
> are not considered important in the running of the business.  Go Figure!
> Can you spell  M-O-N-O-P-O-L-I-E-S???
> e
>
> "Michael D. Palage" wrote:
>
> > Danny:
> >
> > Not to sound like an attorney, but there is no contractual requirement
> that registrars or registries participate in the DNSO, or its processes.
> Regardless of the level of participation by either registrars or registries,
> such action or inaction does not waive the contractual rights contained in
> their contracts. Although I will work on a more detailed response to your
> questions below during my flight to China, I wanted to give you some quick
> answers.
> >
> > Question 1: The Registrar Constituency hase had a sort of revolving door
> of representation in the Whois task force. Although Paul Kane was an initial
> registrar advocate we have had several representatives serving on this Task
> Force: Philip, Ken and Tim. Although some people may find this hard to
> believe, but registrars do have businesses to run and they are not always
> able to devote the necessary resources to play in the DNSO's policy sandbox
> that other people seem to have. I think Ross has been doing a good job of
> advocating the registrar position on the Transfer's Task Force. However, as
> I previously noted as the final recommendations become clearer there is a
> growing number of registrars expressing concern about certain
> recommendations. I do not believe that the registrars nor the registries are
> trying to force the Task Force back to square one. All I believe they are
> trying to do is ensure that their contractual safeguards are preserved.
> >
> > Question 2: The Executive Committee delegates the responsibilities of
> representing the registrars viewpoints to specific representatives. They
> periodically report to the constituency and the executive committee on their
> progress. When a final report is available it is put forth to the
> constituency for a vote. Unlike other constituencies that fail to delegate
> responsibilities to other members, I do not specifically know what has or
> has not been stated to the Task Forces. All I know is what has been
> communicated to me via email, in person meetings, teleconferences, etc. Not
> all communication within the registrar constituency occurs on the listserv.
> >
> > Question 3: I cannot say with certainty why registrar come to me. Maybe
> because I tend to listen and recommend a reasonable and prudent course of
> action based upon the facts and the binding contracts. Registrars and
> registries may chose to contact Louis because he is the general counsel of
> ICANN and registrars and registries have contracts with ICANN. Speaking for
> myself, I contacted Steve Metalitz and raised a number of concerns regarding
> some of the initial recommendations in an earlier Whois draft report. This
> was followed up with some discussions with my registry counterparts. Based
> upon this discussion I am writing a formal response to the Whois Task Force
> showing what I believe is serious fundamental flaws in the report, as well
> as potential recommendations for moving forward with a solution to the
> problem.
> >
> > I guess one of the biggest reasons why people choose not to actively
> participate in the DNSO processes is that there is so much noise on the task
> force and mailing lists, that they prefer to sit back and rely upon the
> contracts they entered into in good faith. The same contracts that allow
> them to employ people, pay rent and taxes, etc. I know this is definitely
> not the answer you were looking for but it is part of the reality we live
> in.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 10:27 AM
> > To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Legal Briefing
> >
> > Michael,
> >
> > You are doubtless aware that I hold no particular fondness for the Task
> Force
> > concept which serves to limit participation rather than encouraging
> > participation and substantive contributions.  We again now find ourselves
> at
> > a point where after initial recommendations have been made, those that
> > haven't had a chance to participate in the policy development process now
> > take issue with the recommendations studiously developed by their peers
> > (bringing us back to square one).
> >
> > While you have called for the rejection of the WHOIS Task Force interim
> > recommendations deeming them to be inconsistent with ICANN’s existing
> > contractual obligations, a violation of ICANN’s mission and core values,
> in
> > conflict with existing technical and market realities, and constituting a
> > treat to the stability of the Internet, I would note that the registrar
> > constituency does indeed have a representative assigned to the WHOIS Task
> > Force, Ken Stubbs, and that I am not aware of any such issues being raised
> by
> > Ken on the Task Force Discussion List.
> >
> > This raises the following questions:
> >
> > 1.  Why aren't members of the registrar constituency following the policy
> > development process within the TF, interacting with their
> > representative-of-record on the Task Force, and instructing him to post
> their
> > comments to the list for consideration by other stakeholders prior to the
> > publication of an Interim Report?
> > 2.  Why hasn't your representative raised such issues for discussion on
> the
> > TF list if they indeed are of the magnitude that you describe and are of
> such
> > great concern to the constituency?
> > 3.  Why do your members find it necessary to go straight to either
> yourself
> > or to ICANN staff with their complaints and concerns rather than going to
> > their TF representative so that issues might be addressed in mutual
> > consultation prior to arriving at what is now the Interim Report stage?
> >
> > What I am seeing is more of an attempt to derail a process than to
> cooperate
> > within the process itself.  Constantly going back to square one serves
> > nobody's interests.  If the process itself is flawed, then perhaps we need
> to
> > take another hard look at the process and consider appropriate changes
> before
> > we again head down this profitless road, but acting to do no more than
> trash
> > the work of others that have diligently cooperated for well over a year to
> > arrive at recommendations is not the best possible way forward.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Danny
> >
> > --
> > 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: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 14:38:19 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Legal Briefing

At 2:55 PM -0400 10/21/02, Michael D. Palage wrote:
>I never said that people and businesses that register and use domain names
>are not important. They in fact have the ultimate responsibility of speaking
>with their wallet in choosing their registrar of record and what tld they
>register in.

Close, but no biscuit.

You're forgeting one very important fact. Once you have developed a
business that depends on the continued availablity of a particular domain
name, you'll need a pretty big wallet to vote with your feet (by moving to
a different TLD), due to losing nearly all the built-up traffic (from
branding and links).

Basically, if a regisTRY changes the ground rules post-registration,
they've got you by the short and curlies.

The WLS, for instance, is a ground rule change that will force existing
registrants to pay Verisign a $49 yearly "insurance policy" so that they
can guarantee they'll keep the name is some idiot sends a delete command.

- -- 
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

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

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 22:01:12 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Legal Briefing

On 2002-10-21 14:55:21 -0400, Michael D. Palage wrote:

> I never said that people and businesses that register and use
> domain names are not important. They in fact have the ultimate
> responsibility of speaking with their wallet in choosing their
> registrar of record and what tld they register in.

Which permits precisely _zero_ choice when uniform policies are
concerned.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler	(mobile)	<[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: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 16:36:19 -0400
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Legal Briefing

I do not disagree. In fact, absent compelling circumstances, I believe that
in the absence of actual documented consensus, Registries and Registrars
should allow the market to determine what works and what doesn't works so
there is choice for the consumer.

Mike

- -----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 4:01 PM
To: Michael D. Palage
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Legal Briefing

On 2002-10-21 14:55:21 -0400, Michael D. Palage wrote:

> I never said that people and businesses that register and use
> domain names are not important. They in fact have the ultimate
> responsibility of speaking with their wallet in choosing their
> registrar of record and what tld they register in.

Which permits precisely _zero_ choice when uniform policies are
concerned.

- --
Thomas Roessler	(mobile)	<[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: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:20:40 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Legal Briefing

Well now that is amazing.
Is this what the DoC is trying to tell us?
Is this what Babtista and Fleming and Leah and some ccTLDs are going for?
What would happen if we all agreed, rabid individualists like myself,
registrars and registries and inclusives and ccs and gs?  And you know what? I
think we do.
Which brings us to the conclusion that less ICANN is a better ICANN.
e

"Michael D. Palage" wrote:

> I do not disagree. In fact, absent compelling circumstances, I believe that
> in the absence of actual documented consensus, Registries and Registrars
> should allow the market to determine what works and what doesn't works so
> there is choice for the consumer.
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 4:01 PM
> To: Michael D. Palage
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Legal Briefing
>
> On 2002-10-21 14:55:21 -0400, Michael D. Palage wrote:
>
> > I never said that people and businesses that register and use
> > domain names are not important. They in fact have the ultimate
> > responsibility of speaking with their wallet in choosing their
> > registrar of record and what tld they register in.
>
> Which permits precisely _zero_ choice when uniform policies are
> concerned.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler (mobile)        <[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

- --
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 #1481
*************************