Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1501
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Friday, November 8 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1501

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

Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 12:18:02 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Whois - Apnics RIR whois bugs? Re: [apnic-talk] Is the NIC-HDL id supposed to be unique

Meng and all,

  Yes this needs to be corrected right away.  If not, such could be
a prelude to identity theft.  That is a fairly serious problem.  Perhaps
the new APNIC Whois has some bugs in it?

Meng Tsai wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> If not, how/who can I contact APNIC for the correction ?
>
> I found out that someone else is sharing the same handle
> as I have in the whois db.
>
> Thanks
>
> Meng Tsai
> *              APNIC-TALK: General APNIC Discussion List             *
> * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to [email-masked] *

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
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: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 12:22:29 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ignoring the Rules

Jeff Neuman and all assembly members or other interested parties,

  I too shall be very brief in my response..

  Without good process there can be no good product.
Hence following the "Rules" as stated in this instance is
paramount if creditability in the product is to gather
consensus...

Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Danny,
>
> I am going to try to be brief here in my comments:
>
> 1)  All of these items are being prepared for the final report (which will
> be available for public comment as well);
> 2)  I was so hopeful after your last submission that you would provide
> something more of substance in your e-mail, but as usual, you have reverted
> to arguing about process.
>
> This is a ploy to you and to the rest of the Internet community and I said
> this no less than ten times in Shanghai as well.  Would someone please give
> substantive comments to the document itself?  Is there anyone out there that
> can comment on the substance of what has been proposed.  Aside from a few
> registrars and registries who are commenting on the substance in the report,
> there have been no other comments on SUBSTANCE.  The GA has been silent on
> the substance (although loud on procedure).  The GA has been loud on the
> things they do not like going on with some ofthe Registrars, but silent on
> how to solve it.
>
> Everyone likes to complain about process, but few people put their money
> where their mouth is.  We now have a document out for public comment and how
> many comments of substance do we have?
>
> Sorry this is so negative, but people worked hard on the Report and we will
> work harder to make sure it reflects any feedback we receive, but that
> assumes people will provide feedback.
>
> Thanks.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 11:17 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] Ignoring the Rules
>
> Marilyn and members of the Transfers Task Force,
>
> The current Names Council Rules of Procedure include a section entitled
> "Disputes and Role of an Interim Report" which stipulates that an interim
> report should contain:
>
> (a) an abstract of all proposals which achieved a meaningful level of
> support,
> (b) a clear statement of what is being proposed and its underlying rationale
>
> (c) an analysis of who and what systems might be impacted by the proposal
> (d) the specific steps that would be necessary to take to implement the
> proposal
> (e) the costs and risks, if any, of implementing the proposal and how they
> would be borne
> (f) a statement of which stakeholders have been consulted about the proposal
>
> and what support the proposal has in the various stakeholder communities.
>
> The interim report that has been prepared by the Task Force is grossly
> deficient in that it does not attend to the above requirements.  This is
> also
> not the first time that such an interim report has been prepared in such a
> lax manner -- one has to wonder if there a particular reason why the Task
> Force can't abide by the guidelines set down by the Council?  I get the
> impression that you are more interested in meeting artificial deadlines (a
> final submission by Amsterdam) than in actually doing a thorough and
> responsible job.
>
> If members of the Names Council aren't willing to abide by their own Rules
> of
> Procedure, why then should registrars abide by any set of rules that you
> seek
> to foist upon them?
> --
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
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: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 13:54:35 -0500 
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Ignoring the Rules

Michael,

I can assure you that we have been taking the rules very seriously.  The
Registrars (and the Internet Community )have spent over a year and a half on
this issue.  The Task Force has spent over a year on producing substantive
recommendation and has put them forth to the community for comment.  The
report can be found at:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021016.NCTransfertTF-interim-report.html

We are working on providing the following (as Danny Younger has pointed
out).  I can give you my own comments (SEE ALL CAPS)

(a) an abstract of all proposals which achieved a meaningful level of 
support, TO BE HONEST, THERE WERE NO OTHER PROPOSALS THAT WERE RECEIVED

(b) a clear statement of what is being proposed and its underlying rationale
THIS IS IN THE REPORT ITSELF

(c) an analysis of who and what systems might be impacted by the proposal WE
ARE SEEKING COMMENT ON THIS.

(d) the specific steps that would be necessary to take to implement the 
proposal -  THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS WE ARE SEEKING COMMENT ON

(e) the costs and risks, if any, of implementing the proposal and how they 
would be borne  -- THIS IS SOMETHING ELSE WE ARE SEEKING COMMENT ON.

(f) a statement of which stakeholders have been consulted about the proposal

and what support the proposal has in the various stakeholder communities. WE
ARE PUTTING THIS OUT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT TO SEE WHAT SUPPORT EXISTS FOR THE
PROPOSAL OUTSIDE OF THE TASK FORCE.  YOU CANNOT FIND OUT WHO SUPPORTS A
PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU PUT THE PROPOSAL OUT.

Now, this is pleas #3.  You have the report, you can read it and you can
comment.  But if you do not provide any comments, then to state the obvious,
your comments cannot be considered.

Thanks.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
[mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 1:09 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Ignoring the Rules

Yes - it means those of us who only follow the issue with one eye don't
have a summary in hand identifying the issues.  Take me for example, I
really haven't focused on this one at all.  Really.  I wish you would stop
attacking motives and 1) take this stuff seriously and 2) play by the
rules -- they're stacked enough as it is.

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

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

Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 14:15:19 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Ignoring the Rules

Jeff,

If the process was followed by members of the TF, then I wouldn't have to 
revert to arguing about process.  As I see it, the members of the TF have 
looked at one proposal only.  They have not even bothered to discuss the VGRS 
Interim Transfer Policy Proposal posted at 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/doc00119.doc nor have they 
bothered to examine operative models within the ccTLD community that deal 
with transfers (such as the auDA published policy on transfers at 
http://www.auda.org.au/docs/auda-2002-08.txt which was brought to the 
attention of the registrar community by the Chair of the Names Council).  
There are also new proposals on the table such as the one put forth by Elliot 
Noss at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/doc00128.doc.  How 
then can you write "TO BE HONEST, THERE WERE NO OTHER PROPOSALS THAT WERE 
RECEIVED"...  

Further, how much feedback do you expect when the language in your Interim 
proposal is as clear as mud to most registrants?  As David Safran wrote:  "I 
am increasingly finding it hard to decide how my constituency should stand on 
the proposals since more and more of the discussions are focusing on factors 
which seem to me to be primarily within the knowledge base of the registrars 
and registries, and appear to be directed to mechanics not policy."  You 
state regarding "a clear statement of what is being proposed and its 
underlying rationale" --THIS IS IN THE REPORT ITSELF -- I defy you to present 
to us that clear statement.  In the entirety of your document, I have yet to 
find a single phrase, sentance, or paragraph that explicitly states what the 
proposed policy is in language that a layman can understand.  

How are we to provide you with substantive comments on "the costs and risks, 
if any, of implementing the proposal and how they would be borne" when you 
haven't given us anything to work with?  The Dispute Resolution provisions -- 
we have no idea if you're talking about a $1500 fee or a $30 assessment 
because you haven't provided any commentary on this topic.  

More comments will follow later this evening...

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

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

Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 11:40:19 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Ignoring the Rules

JW,
this is buffoonery,
Good product can come from nature, faith, genius and love.
So for about the fifth time I tell you, you are wrong in this.
Otherwise nothing you produce can be a good product because there is not process
in one.
Otherwise Edison and Franklin did not accidentally find anything good.
So knock off this rhetoric.
e

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Jeff Neuman and all assembly members or other interested parties,
>
>   I too shall be very brief in my response..
>
>   Without good process there can be no good product.

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

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

Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 14:44:27 -0500 
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Ignoring the Rules

Danny,

See my comments in ALL CAPS below:

Also, this may put me beyond the posting limit, and if so, I apologize in
advance.

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 2:15 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Ignoring the Rules

Jeff,

If the process was followed by members of the TF, then I wouldn't have to 
revert to arguing about process.  As I see it, the members of the TF have 
looked at one proposal only.  They have not even bothered to discuss the
VGRS 
Interim Transfer Policy Proposal posted at 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/doc00119.doc nor have they 
bothered to examine operative models within the ccTLD community that deal 
with transfers (such as the auDA published policy on transfers at 
http://www.auda.org.au/docs/auda-2002-08.txt which was brought to the 
attention of the registrar community by the Chair of the Names Council).  
There are also new proposals on the table such as the one put forth by
Elliot 
Noss at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/doc00128.doc.  How 
then can you write "TO BE HONEST, THERE WERE NO OTHER PROPOSALS THAT WERE 
RECEIVED"...  

1)  VERISIGN HAS ONLY MADE ITS PROPOSAL TO THE REGISTRARS AND NEVER TO THE
TASK FORCE.  IN ADDITION, IF YOU LOOK AT CHUCK'S PROPOSAL, MOST OF IT WAS
DERIVED FROM OR IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE TF REPORT.

2)  WITH RESPECT TO AUDA, NO ONE HAS BROUGHT THAT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
TASK FORCE UNTIL NOW.  

3)  ELLIOT'S PROPOSAL WAS PUT ON THE TABLE YESTERDAY (WAY AFTER THE REPORT
WAS PUT OUT) AND IT ONLY APPLIES TO .COM AND .NET (NOT TO ANY OTHER
REGISTRY).  HIS PROPOSAL WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO IMPLEMENT (AS HE ADMITS) IN
THE EPP REGISTRIES.

Further, how much feedback do you expect when the language in your Interim 
proposal is as clear as mud to most registrants?  As David Safran wrote:  "I

am increasingly finding it hard to decide how my constituency should stand
on 
the proposals since more and more of the discussions are focusing on factors

which seem to me to be primarily within the knowledge base of the registrars

and registries, and appear to be directed to mechanics not policy."  You 
state regarding "a clear statement of what is being proposed and its 
underlying rationale" --THIS IS IN THE REPORT ITSELF -- I defy you to
present 
to us that clear statement.  In the entirety of your document, I have yet to

find a single phrase, sentance, or paragraph that explicitly states what the

proposed policy is in language that a layman can understand.  

THE PAPER PROVIDES PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES FOR REGISTRARS TO FOLLOW IN BOTH
RRP AND EPP REGISTRIES TO EFFECTUATE A TRANSFER.  IT FOLLOWS A PREMISE OF
"AUTO-ACK" AND PROVIDES SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF THE LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES IN
WHICH A "LOSING" REGISTRAR CAN DENY A TRANSFER REQUEST FROM A "GAINING
REGISTRAR."  IT ALSO PROVIDES FOR A STANDARD FORM OF AUTHORIZATION TO
INITIATE A TRANSFER AND A DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS IN THE EVENT THAT A
REGISTRAR DOES NOT FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES SET FORTH IN THE
REPORT.

YOU ARE CORRECT IN THAT THE DOCUMENT IS VERY TECHNICAL AND NOT EASY TO
UNDERSTAND BY LAYMEN, AND FOR THAT I AM SORRY.  I WILL BRING THIS UP WITH
THE TASK FORCE.  SOMETIMES WHEN YOU ARE SO INTIMATE WITH THE DETAILS, YOU
FORGET THAT NOT EVERYONE HAS THOSE DETAILS.

How are we to provide you with substantive comments on "the costs and risks,

if any, of implementing the proposal and how they would be borne" when you 
haven't given us anything to work with?  

WHAT MORE CAN WE GIVE YOU?

The Dispute Resolution provisions -- 
we have no idea if you're talking about a $1500 fee or a $30 assessment 
because you haven't provided any commentary on this topic.

THIS IS SOMETHING WE ARE SEEKING COMMENT ON.  HOW MUCH SHOULD A DISPUTE COST
GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT A DISPUTE PANELIST WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH?
WHAT PROCESSES DO YOU THINK SHOULD BE IN PLACE?  WILL SUCH A DISPUTE PROCESS
PROTECT THE ULTIMATE CONSUMER?    

More comments will follow later this evening...

WE WOULD APPRECIATE 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: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 18:38:39 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ignoring the Rules

Jeff Nueman and all assembly members, stakeholdersor other interested parties,

Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Michael,
>
> I can assure you that we have been taking the rules very seriously.

  Ok than why aren't you and the TF following them as Danny, Michael,
Milton and myself have pointed out.  And not only once but several times.
Once could just be an honest mistake, but on several occasions is not
just a simple oversight of mistake.  This is at the crux of the TF method
that the DNSO NC and ICANN have terribly and inexcusably fouled
up on.  And yes, this is of course a process problem..

> The
> Registrars (and the Internet Community )have spent over a year and a half on
> this issue.  The Task Force has spent over a year on producing substantive
> recommendation and has put them forth to the community for comment.  The
> report can be found at:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021016.NCTransfertTF-interim-report.html

  And as has been stated over and over again this report is so cryptic in it's
nature as to be nearly worthless and unimplimentable..

  But the more important problems with the rules or process by which
such a report is generated or produced.  Without good process, there
cannot be a good product.  This report is testament to that..

>
>
> We are working on providing the following (as Danny Younger has pointed
> out).  I can give you my own comments (SEE ALL CAPS)
>
> (a) an abstract of all proposals which achieved a meaningful level of
> support, TO BE HONEST, THERE WERE NO OTHER PROPOSALS THAT WERE RECEIVED

  What!!!??  Have you lost you eyesight, or reading skills Mr. Nueman??!!
Surely not!  There as danny pointed out today on this thread as well as
others including myself, a number of other proposals that have been
submitted.

>
>
> (b) a clear statement of what is being proposed and its underlying rationale
> THIS IS IN THE REPORT ITSELF

  There is no single clear statement in this report of actual value as to the
particulars..

>
>
> (c) an analysis of who and what systems might be impacted by the proposal WE
> ARE SEEKING COMMENT ON THIS.

  Ok this is fair and a good thing...  However given the gist of you comments
thus far, I am sure many will find that such comments submitted will be
overlooked just as you stated above that no other proposals have been
submitted...

>
>
> (d) the specific steps that would be necessary to take to implement the
> proposal -  THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS WE ARE SEEKING COMMENT ON

  The TF proposal is not possible to implement...

>
>
> (e) the costs and risks, if any, of implementing the proposal and how they
> would be borne  -- THIS IS SOMETHING ELSE WE ARE SEEKING COMMENT ON.

  Again this TF proposal would be impossible in it's present form to determine
any such costs as the proposal is so vague as to belie such an evaluation.

>
>
> (f) a statement of which stakeholders have been consulted about the proposal
>
> and what support the proposal has in the various stakeholder communities. WE
> ARE PUTTING THIS OUT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT TO SEE WHAT SUPPORT EXISTS FOR THE
> PROPOSAL OUTSIDE OF THE TASK FORCE.  YOU CANNOT FIND OUT WHO SUPPORTS A
> PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU PUT THE PROPOSAL OUT.

  You last sentance/statement is here is quite correct.

>
>
> Now, this is pleas #3.  You have the report, you can read it and you can
> comment.  But if you do not provide any comments, then to state the obvious,
> your comments cannot be considered.

  The obvious has been stated already.  Your or the TF's refusal to accept such
comments is again a different matter all together entirely...

>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 1:09 PM
> To: Neuman, Jeff
> Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Ignoring the Rules
>
> Yes - it means those of us who only follow the issue with one eye don't
> have a summary in hand identifying the issues.  Take me for example, I
> really haven't focused on this one at all.  Really.  I wish you would stop
> attacking motives and 1) take this stuff seriously and 2) play by the
> rules -- they're stacked enough as it is.
>
>

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
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: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 18:48:07 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ignoring the Rules

Eric and all assembly members,

[email-masked] wrote:

> JW,
> this is buffoonery,
> Good product can come from nature, faith, genius and love.

  Nature has a process and is many processes that are good ones as to their
many products.  Faith has a process that are good ones.  Love is a process
in and of itself.  So Eric, as one whom should know better, you are
the baffoon here me thinks...

>
> So for about the fifth time I tell you, you are wrong in this.

  I don't think so!  See above as to your errant examples...

>
> Otherwise nothing you produce can be a good product because there is not process
> in one.

  A single cell is one until it divides, like the grade school Ameba.
That is a process of one.  I am one with many.  We collectively
have many processes.  Yet, E Plurbis unium - From many, one...

>
> Otherwise Edison and Franklin did not accidentally find anything good.

  Your right they didn't find or invent anything by accident.  All of their
inventions were the products of one or many processes.  Some good
and some not so good.  Discovery, like invention as Edison said, it the
culmination of one or more processes...

>
> So knock off this rhetoric.
> e
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Jeff Neuman and all assembly members or other interested parties,
> >
> >   I too shall be very brief in my response..
> >
> >   Without good process there can be no good product.

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
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: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 18:52:11 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Whois - Apnics RIR whois bugs? Re: [apnic-talk] Is the NIC-HDL id supposed to be unique

Meng,

  I would send it directly to the secretariat as well as to the ICANN
technical staff.

Meng Tsai wrote:

> Hi Jeff and All
>
> Thanks for the notes.
> But more important, can you or others advise how to
> report this problem or correct the problem ?
>
> I got lost in the APNIC web site for searching such
> contact info.
>
> Thanks in adv,
>
> Meng Tsai
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 3:18 PM
> To: Meng Tsai
> Cc: [email-masked]; General Assembly of the DNSO
> Subject: Whois - Apnics RIR whois bugs? Re: [apnic-talk] Is the NIC-HDL
> id supposed to be unique
>
> Meng and all,
>
>   Yes this needs to be corrected right away.  If not, such could be
> a prelude to identity theft.  That is a fairly serious problem.  Perhaps
> the new APNIC Whois has some bugs in it?
>
> Meng Tsai wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > If not, how/who can I contact APNIC for the correction ?
> >
> > I found out that someone else is sharing the same handle
> > as I have in the whois db.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Meng Tsai
> > *              APNIC-TALK: General APNIC Discussion List             *
> > * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to [email-masked] *
>
> Regards,
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
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: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 23:15:30 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Ignoring the Rules

Jeff,

When the transfers task force process commenced we were all keenly aware of 
the views held by the VeriSign registrar, BB Online UK Limited, Internet 
Domain Registrars, Namesecure.com and register.com.  As time went by, other 
registrars joined this particular camp:  BulkRegister.com, Go Daddy, 
NameScout, Wild West Domains, Totalnic,  joker.com and others.  Yet during 
all this time, the task force only considered a single proposal that 
represented the thinking of the numeric majority of the registrar 
constituency without affording due consideration to those within the 
constituency that held differing views (even though those others collectively 
account for more than 60% of all the registrations in the gTLD namespace).  

Over one year ago Bruce Beckwith made the following remark on the registrar 
list regarding the developing transfers document:  

"In addition, as we have stated in the past, this document should also 
address the thorny issues of setting clear definitions for many aspects of 
registrar transfers.  For example, we need to clearly define apparent 
authority, as well as how a third party could validate transfers.  There is 
also not sufficient discussion in the document on the registrar/registrant 
contract, and how/whether an ISP/reseller can act as an agent on behalf of 
the registrant, since they are not a party to the registrar/registrant 
contract (a facet of the apparent authority definition that is needed).  
Finally, it is very important that we understand that non-registrars need to 
participate in the policy-formation process for the result to have 
credibility.  Most importantly, we need to consult with registrants (i.e., 
consumers), who are the very important other half of this equation."
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01287.html

To date, the task force has still not fully or reasonably addressed the 
concerns raised by the VeriSign registrar.  Neither has the task force 
considered or evaluated the proposals put forth by participants such as 
register.com which covered authentication/notarization issues and topics, 
among others, such as the use/appropriateness of Registrar Lock (see 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01314.html ).   

The work-product of the Task Force remains substantially incomplete, and no 
amount of dancing around the issue will hide the fact that most task force 
members have simply not been following the discussions on transfers that have 
been occurring on the registrar and public forum lists and remain largely 
unaware of the huge amount of outstanding unresolved issues.   Debate and 
discussion on the task force list has also been minimal at best with 
participation from several constituencies being limited in the extreme.  In 
part this may be blamed on the actions of your Chair that worked ever so 
diligently to exclude representatives from the registrant community.  In part 
this also may be blamed on the registrar constituency that chose to only have 
one representative on the task force, when clearly the "minority" views of 
the constituency should also have been expressed with equal vigor by another 
representative.

Jeff, I don't know why you are of the belief that it is up to any of us to 
formally "present" proposals to the task force... contrariwise, the 
obligation falls on the task force to pay attention to discussions in the 
community and to proactively gather the necessary data/commentary in order to 
reach out to those that might be impacted by a pending proposal.  Simply 
putting up an interim report on a website does not constitute necessary 
outreach, not if you actually expect to take their views into consideration.  
I am still of the view that the TF is doing no more than "going through the 
motions" and will jam through the proposal on the table simply in order to 
meet an arbitrary publication deadline.  I would like to see you extend the 
comment period for at least another full month so that counter-proposals may 
be both offered and considered prior to any final action being recommended.

One major issue that I view as still unresolved is where the proposed policy 
will live.  While you have noted that Chuck Gome's proposed policy is very 
similar to the TF recommendations, one essential difference lies in how this 
policy comes to life.  Under the VeriSign proposal, the registry is 
essentially the entity responsible for creating the language that governs the 
transfers process, and each registry in conjunction with ICANN may act to 
amend their registry contracts to impose their protocols upon the registrars. 
 No consultation with either the registrar constituency or the DNSO proper is 
required in this scenario, only ICANN's tacit agreement.  As a matter of 
prudent policy, I am not comfortable with this particular approach that can 
trump the views of all other parties in the ICANN process.  However, I am 
even more bothered by the fact that the Task Force hasn't even considered or 
evaluated the relative merits of Chuck's proposal (or for that matter any 
other policy now in place in the ccTLD community, be it the auda policies or 
those in place in .ca or elsewhere).  

If the proposed policy is expected to live within a revision to Exhibit B to 
the registry-registrar contract, then I am equally concerned that this 
unequivocally removes ICANN from the sphere of enforcement as noted by the 
language utilized in Reconsideration Decision 02-2, wherein it is stated:  
"Because the "registrar requirements" regarding transfers are not included in 
any contract enforceable by ICANN, it is not appropriate that ICANN attempt 
to enforce them."     
http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc02-2.htm   The matter of 
who "enforces" transfers is of great concern to registrants who would not 
feel comfortable with the prospect of the VeriSign registry acting as judge 
over matters that involved their own subsidiary company, the VeriSign 
registrar.

If the proposed policy is to live within the Registrar Accreditation 
Agreement to which ICANN is indeed a signatory, then I would be a lot more at 
ease, but we still haven't resolved the issue of who is charged with the 
enforcement obligations.  If this is a matter that involves compliance with 
contracts, then why would it not be appropriate for such matters to be under 
the direct purview of the ICANN Contract Compliance Monitor, the position 
recently created in the new budget?  Further, what exactly will be the role 
of the Ombudsman in these matters?  Supposedly, the Ombudsman's office is 
charged with the resolution of grievances, and a dispute over a transfer 
certainly qualifies as a grievance.  Ultimately, the task force must 
determine what ICANN considers its role to be relative to enforcement of the 
existing contracts... has anyone on the TF taken the time to ask the ICANN 
Board what its view of this situation is?  Why rush into a proposal for  
dispute mechanisms of the kind that are proposed without first getting input 
from the Board?

It is also certainly possible for a proposed policy to live within the 
context of a registrar Code of Conduct.  This would have the effect of making 
the representations therein actionable under law.  As a matter of policy, we 
should have a self-policing industry that is guided by such Codes (unless of 
course the contracting parties prefer that we begin to lobby our local 
governments to implement "regulations" designed to reign in the rogue element 
in this industry).

Also, the concerns of the registrant community have not been fully taken into 
consideration by the task force, if at all.  We have to put up with 
horrendous verification systems, we are confronted with language issues, and 
most often we don't even know who the registrar is for our domain as many 
registrations are handled by ISPs and other resellers that don't routinely 
make the registrant aware of who the actual registrar-of-record is.  The 
proposal on the table solves none of these problems.  We have registrants 
complaining of "lost years" in the transfers process with no method to obtain 
redress of their grievances, we have rampant confusion owing to the unknown 
length of grace periods and aggravation owing to the shortness of time 
available to respond to a registrar in the transfers process.  Again, the 
proposal fails to address these issues.  We have a failure on the part of 
both ICANN and the registrars to clearly communicate the procedures and 
policies relating to transfers ,and nothing in the proposal which forces a 
registrar to clearly state the conditions for a successful transfer either on 
their websites or in their terms of service contracts.

Finally, we have registrars that create their own policies (such as "unpaid 
status") and utilize loopholes to game the process.  The proposal offers 
little comfort to those of us that understand the capacity of these rogue 
registrars to circumvent the system.  If they don't abide by the spirit of 
the rules in place now, how can you possibly expect them to abide by a new 
set of rules without some type of sanctions program as a deterrent to 
continued abusive behavior?  Sure, I know that the idea of sanctions is 
anathema to the registrar constituency, but abusive and rogue behavior 
deserves to be punished, and some of these registrars need to be slammed down 
hard.

I plan to join the conference call on transfers scheduled for November 11.  I 
encourage others to do the same.  Details may be found at 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00603.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 23:28:45 -0500
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Ignoring the Rules

> 2)  WITH RESPECT TO AUDA, NO ONE HAS BROUGHT THAT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
> TASK FORCE UNTIL NOW.

It is a fundamental misconception of Task Force members that they can be
effective without being proactive in the community, that it is everyone
else's duty to bring relevant matters to their attention, not their own duty
to uncover developments. This is what is commonly termed "outreach", which
is not the same thing as "feedback" on a preliminary report prepared by a
select few behind closed doors.

Of course, ICANN continues to believe that it can create the perfect world
in which outsiders only speak when spoken to and can otherwise be ignored.

Regards,
Joanna

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

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

Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 01:04:38 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ignoring the Rules

> all this time, the task force only considered a single proposal that
> represented the thinking of the numeric majority of the registrar
> constituency without affording due consideration to those within the
> constituency that held differing views (even though those others
collectively
> account for more than 60% of all the registrations in the gTLD namespace).

The group you refer to has yet to present a salient proposal to the Task
Force. They have provided their comments to the group and they are currently
being considered. What is difficult with this bunch is determining what
aspects of their comments will move the ball forward and what is simply
rhetoric. The recommendations have evolved over time, but their resistance
has not - its tough being a mind reader.

Regardless, all proposals will be considered, small or large. The Task Force
is in the process of digesting a number that were received through the
public comment process thus far.

> To date, the task force has still not fully or reasonably addressed the
> concerns raised by the VeriSign registrar.  Neither has the task force

That is patently incorrect. Read on...

Requirement #1 - Clear definitions.

> "In addition, as we have stated in the past, this document should also
> address the thorny issues of setting clear definitions for many aspects of
> registrar transfers.

These are well covered under the definitions appendix of the report.

Requirement #2 - Define Apparent Authority.

> registrar transfers.  For example, we need to clearly define apparent
> authority,

The Task Force is recommending that the concept of AA be ditched and that
only the Registrant or Administrative Contact can authorize a transfer. AA
no longer exists, therefore the concern is moot.

Requirement #3 - The role of third parties.

> authority, as well as how a third party could validate transfers.

The recommendations are clear that only a registrar can authenticate a
transfer request.

Requirement #4 - The role of third parties as agents of the registrant.

> contract, and how/whether an ISP/reseller can act as an agent on behalf of
> the registrant, since they are not a party to the registrar/registrant
> contract (a facet of the apparent authority definition that is needed).

Registrants can appoint agents to act on their behalf and grant them
Administrative Contact privileges which will allow the agent to
request/approve/deny a transfer. Clearly covered under the recommendations.

Requirement #5 - Consultation with Registrants

> Finally, it is very important that we understand that non-registrars need
to
> participate in the policy-formation process for the result to have
> credibility.  Most importantly, we need to consult with registrants (i.e.,
> consumers), who are the very important other half of this equation."

The task force has specifically consulted with the needs of the user
community through a variety of outreach efforts. Complete details will be in
our final report, but suffice to say that they consisted of several open
conference calls, constituency representation, input through registrars and
registries (such as the extensive list you document in your recent
submission to the TF) and so on.

> To date, the task force has still not fully or reasonably addressed the
> concerns raised by the VeriSign registrar.

I substantially disagree. I would like to hear more from you on this point
however because despite the Task Force taking great pains to ensure that the
concerns presented by the dissenting voices were taken into account by the
TF recommendations, they still continue to oppose our work. Do you see a
pattern here? Verisign has opposed every single transfer proposal made to
date. Over half of all outbound transfers *today* come from Verisign to
another registrar. Might it be that supporting a rational portability policy
isn't in their economic interests? Well, neither is ICANN and much of the
work that we do here, but given the mandate we have surrounding competition,
we shouldn't let that stop us now. Reasoned objections are one thing,
irrational holdouts are another.

> concerns raised by the VeriSign registrar.  Neither has the task force
> considered or evaluated the proposals put forth by participants such as
> register.com which covered authentication/notarization issues and topics,
> among others, such as the use/appropriateness of Registrar Lock (see

Incorrect. In fact, even though the communication that you reference
predates the existence of the task force, the proposal initially tabled with
the task force specifically included a flag of these points for further
consideration and they were substantially analysed through the development
of the recommendations...specifically...

Requirement #1 - Clear definition of AA

"1)	Definition of individual who has the apparent authority to legally bind
the Registered Name holder."

See above. Dealt with by report.

Requirement #2 - Allow third parties to initiate transfer requests

"2)	Process for Transfers initiated by Indirect Partners of Gaining
Registrars."

Clearly covered by report - I'll let you look this one up, but its
specifically in there.

Requirement #3 - Repatriation of domain names

"3)	Gaining Registrar transferring domain names back to the Losing Registrar
in a case where it has been demonstrated that the Gaining Registrar did not
act in accordance with the practices and processes contemplated by this
document.  Gaining Registrar's indemnification of the Losing Registrar
against legal recourse in such cases.

Covered by the report through the complaint and appeals process. Further
consultation on this point has uncovered that we also need a technical
"undo" function. Undo has not been contemplated by the Task Force at this
point, however this functionality requirement was only uncovered through the
PC process.

Requirement #4 - Describing when and where registrar_lock should and should
not be employed by registrars.

"4)	Appropriateness of Registrar Lock."

Recommendations concerning this registry feature are peppered throughout the
report.

Requirement #5 - Notarizing physical documents obtained by the Gaining
Registrar.

"5)	A requirement to authenticate or notarize some, or all, of the transfer
ocumentation procured by the Gaining Registrar."

Rejected by the Task Force as being to localized to the US, unwieldy for
registrants and users. This was generally not viewed as being practical by
the user communities. The complete analysis will be part of the record in
the form of the conference call transcripts that will be released with the
final report.

Further, also note that Register.com was extensively involved in the
creation of the document that they criticise above. I will leave it to
others to determine whether or not this constitutes reasonable objections or
not.

> The work-product of the Task Force remains substantially incomplete, and
no
> amount of dancing around the issue will hide the fact that most task force
> members have simply not been following the discussions on transfers that
have
> been occurring on the registrar and public forum lists and remain largely
> unaware of the huge amount of outstanding unresolved issues.

Incorrect on both counts. In fact, you might be interested in the rather
well-reasoned objections by the IP constituency today on our weekly
conference call in which the IP constituency rep and the registry rep both
talked me out my my proposal to have further discussion on the pure-EPP
model on the basis that it was distractive due to the fact that none of the
registries are using pure-EPP. Rather well informed if you ask me.

> participation from several constituencies being limited in the extreme.
In
> part this may be blamed on the actions of your Chair that worked ever so
> diligently to exclude representatives from the registrant community.  In
part

Is conclusion as well-founded as the rest that you present in your message
below?

> One major issue that I view as still unresolved is where the proposed
policy
> will live.

This is correct. Our prior recommendations on this issue have been withdrawn
due to input from the community, the staff and the Names Council. While the
task force is expected to be precise in its recommendations, we cannot
specify implementation - ie, which contracts get modified and how. This task
is beyond the scope of the DNSO. Instead, it has been requested that we be
as precise as possible in our description of what the desired effect of
these recommendations is in order that the lawyers and contracted parties
can sort this out and implement the recommendations as the community has
envisaged.

> It is also certainly possible for a proposed policy to live within the
> context of a registrar Code of Conduct.

Nope - beyond the scope of the DNSO. Only a consensus of accredited
registrars can adopt a binding code of conduct - already been down that road
(remember the first six months of this issue before there was a task force?)

> Also, the concerns of the registrant community have not been fully taken
into
> consideration by the task force, if at all.  We have to put up with
> horrendous verification systems, we are confronted with language issues,
and
> most often we don't even know who the registrar is for our domain as many
> registrations are handled by ISPs and other resellers that don't routinely
> make the registrant aware of who the actual registrar-of-record is.  The
> proposal on the table solves none of these problems.  We have registrants
> complaining of "lost years" in the transfers process with no method to
obtain
> redress of their grievances, we have rampant confusion owing to the
unknown
> length of grace periods and aggravation owing to the shortness of time
> available to respond to a registrar in the transfers process.  Again, the
> proposal fails to address these issues.  We have a failure on the part of
> both ICANN and the registrars to clearly communicate the procedures and
> policies relating to transfers ,and nothing in the proposal which forces a
> registrar to clearly state the conditions for a successful transfer either
on
> their websites or in their terms of service contracts.

Do you propose that ICANN regulate the market behavior of the industry?
Setting minimum standards for things like transfers is one thing, requiring
specific behaviors such as those you describe are completely another. If you
are serious with this remark, might I recommend that you ensure that it is
tabled with the TF? I don't see support for the proposition coming from the
Registrar or Registry constituency, but if the user voice is united on these
points, we may have to reconsider our respective positions. My preference is
to allow Registrars and Registries to provide shitty service. The market
will eventually separate the wheat from the chaff. Also note that the task
force has discussed this specific point at length.

> Finally, we have registrars that create their own policies (such as
"unpaid
> status") and utilize loopholes to game the process.  The proposal offers
> little comfort to those of us that understand the capacity of these rogue
> registrars to circumvent the system.  If they don't abide by the spirit of
> the rules in place now, how can you possibly expect them to abide by a new
> set of rules without some type of sanctions program as a deterrent to
> continued abusive behavior?  Sure, I know that the idea of sanctions is
> anathema to the registrar constituency, but abusive and rogue behavior
> deserves to be punished, and some of these registrars need to be slammed
down
> hard.

Can you be more specific where the recommendations fall short in this
regard. Remember, the dispute resolution clauses require the losing party to
cover the cost of the proceedings...this adds up quickly when the rules are
being abused.

> I plan to join the conference call on transfers scheduled for November 11.
I
> encourage others to do the same.  Details may be found at
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00603.html

To be quite honest, I'd prefer if the general community did *not* attend
this call in large numbers for a very practical reason. The purpose of this
call is to allow me to continue a dialogue that I started with my
constituency (as their TF) rep while we were in China. We ran out of time in
our constituency meeting and did not get the chance to completely enumerate
the entire list of concerns that the membership had with the interim report.
This call is not a DNSO sponsored call, it is a Tucows sponsored call. My
boss will kill me if 50 people show up. Further, input will not be solicited
from observers during this call, solely registrar constituency members will
be consulted. If the GA wishes to have a call with their rep, this is their
perogative, but it is really beyond my financial and political means to
provide a complete forum for all interested policies (in other words, sorry
for the misconception, I should have been clearer when I said "observers",
but really, I only intended for registrars to show up.)

Thanks for the discourse - I hope it has been as useful for you as it has
been for me. Regardless, you know where to find me :)

                     -rwr

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
thought which they seldom use."
 - Soren Kierkegaard

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Ignoring the Rules

> Jeff,
>
> When the transfers task force process commenced we were all keenly aware
of
> the views held by the VeriSign registrar, BB Online UK Limited, Internet
> Domain Registrars, Namesecure.com and register.com.  As time went by,
other
> registrars joined this particular camp:  BulkRegister.com, Go Daddy,
> NameScout, Wild West Domains, Totalnic,  joker.com and others.  Yet during
> all this time, the task force only considered a single proposal that
> represented the thinking of the numeric majority of the registrar
> constituency without affording due consideration to those within the
> constituency that held differing views (even though those others
collectively
> account for more than 60% of all the registrations in the gTLD namespace).
>
> Over one year ago Bruce Beckwith made the following remark on the
registrar
> list regarding the developing transfers document:
>
> "In addition, as we have stated in the past, this document should also
> address the thorny issues of setting clear definitions for many aspects of
> registrar transfers.  For example, we need to clearly define apparent
> authority, as well as how a third party could validate transfers.  There
is
> also not sufficient discussion in the document on the registrar/registrant
> contract, and how/whether an ISP/reseller can act as an agent on behalf of
> the registrant, since they are not a party to the registrar/registrant
> contract (a facet of the apparent authority definition that is needed).
> Finally, it is very important that we understand that non-registrars need
to
> participate in the policy-formation process for the result to have
> credibility.  Most importantly, we need to consult with registrants (i.e.,
> consumers), who are the very important other half of this equation."
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01287.html
>
> To date, the task force has still not fully or reasonably addressed the
> concerns raised by the VeriSign registrar.  Neither has the task force
> considered or evaluated the proposals put forth by participants such as
> register.com which covered authentication/notarization issues and topics,
> among others, such as the use/appropriateness of Registrar Lock (see
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01314.html ).
>
> The work-product of the Task Force remains substantially incomplete, and
no
> amount of dancing around the issue will hide the fact that most task force
> members have simply not been following the discussions on transfers that
have
> been occurring on the registrar and public forum lists and remain largely
> unaware of the huge amount of outstanding unresolved issues.   Debate and
> discussion on the task force list has also been minimal at best with
> participation from several constituencies being limited in the extreme.
In
> part this may be blamed on the actions of your Chair that worked ever so
> diligently to exclude representatives from the registrant community.  In
part
> this also may be blamed on the registrar constituency that chose to only
have
> one representative on the task force, when clearly the "minority" views of
> the constituency should also have been expressed with equal vigor by
another
> representative.
>
> Jeff, I don't know why you are of the belief that it is up to any of us to
> formally "present" proposals to the task force... contrariwise, the
> obligation falls on the task force to pay attention to discussions in the
> community and to proactively gather the necessary data/commentary in order
to
> reach out to those that might be impacted by a pending proposal.  Simply
> putting up an interim report on a website does not constitute necessary
> outreach, not if you actually expect to take their views into
consideration.
> I am still of the view that the TF is doing no more than "going through
the
> motions" and will jam through the proposal on the table simply in order to
> meet an arbitrary publication deadline.  I would like to see you extend
the
> comment period for at least another full month so that counter-proposals
may
> be both offered and considered prior to any final action being
recommended.
>
> One major issue that I view as still unresolved is where the proposed
policy
> will live.  While you have noted that Chuck Gome's proposed policy is very
> similar to the TF recommendations, one essential difference lies in how
this
> policy comes to life.  Under the VeriSign proposal, the registry is
> essentially the entity responsible for creating the language that governs
the
> transfers process, and each registry in conjunction with ICANN may act to
> amend their registry contracts to impose their protocols upon the
registrars.
>  No consultation with either the registrar constituency or the DNSO proper
is
> required in this scenario, only ICANN's tacit agreement.  As a matter of
> prudent policy, I am not comfortable with this particular approach that
can
> trump the views of all other parties in the ICANN process.  However, I am
> even more bothered by the fact that the Task Force hasn't even considered
or
> evaluated the relative merits of Chuck's proposal (or for that matter any
> other policy now in place in the ccTLD community, be it the auda policies
or
> those in place in .ca or elsewhere).
>
> If the proposed policy is expected to live within a revision to Exhibit B
to
> the registry-registrar contract, then I am equally concerned that this
> unequivocally removes ICANN from the sphere of enforcement as noted by the
> language utilized in Reconsideration Decision 02-2, wherein it is stated:
> "Because the "registrar requirements" regarding transfers are not included
in
> any contract enforceable by ICANN, it is not appropriate that ICANN
attempt
> to enforce them."
> http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc02-2.htm   The matter of
> who "enforces" transfers is of great concern to registrants who would not
> feel comfortable with the prospect of the VeriSign registry acting as
judge
> over matters that involved their own subsidiary company, the VeriSign
> registrar.
>
> If the proposed policy is to live within the Registrar Accreditation
> Agreement to which ICANN is indeed a signatory, then I would be a lot more
at
> ease, but we still haven't resolved the issue of who is charged with the
> enforcement obligations.  If this is a matter that involves compliance
with
> contracts, then why would it not be appropriate for such matters to be
under
> the direct purview of the ICANN Contract Compliance Monitor, the position
> recently created in the new budget?  Further, what exactly will be the
role
> of the Ombudsman in these matters?  Supposedly, the Ombudsman's office is
> charged with the resolution of grievances, and a dispute over a transfer
> certainly qualifies as a grievance.  Ultimately, the task force must
> determine what ICANN considers its role to be relative to enforcement of
the
> existing contracts... has anyone on the TF taken the time to ask the ICANN
> Board what its view of this situation is?  Why rush into a proposal for
> dispute mechanisms of the kind that are proposed without first getting
input
> from the Board?
>
> It is also certainly possible for a proposed policy to live within the
> context of a registrar Code of Conduct.  This would have the effect of
making
> the representations therein actionable under law.  As a matter of policy,
we
> should have a self-policing industry that is guided by such Codes (unless
of
> course the contracting parties prefer that we begin to lobby our local
> governments to implement "regulations" designed to reign in the rogue
element
> in this industry).
>
> Also, the concerns of the registrant community have not been fully taken
into
> consideration by the task force, if at all.  We have to put up with
> horrendous verification systems, we are confronted with language issues,
and
> most often we don't even know who the registrar is for our domain as many
> registrations are handled by ISPs and other resellers that don't routinely
> make the registrant aware of who the actual registrar-of-record is.  The
> proposal on the table solves none of these problems.  We have registrants
> complaining of "lost years" in the transfers process with no method to
obtain
> redress of their grievances, we have rampant confusion owing to the
unknown
> length of grace periods and aggravation owing to the shortness of time
> available to respond to a registrar in the transfers process.  Again, the
> proposal fails to address these issues.  We have a failure on the part of
> both ICANN and the registrars to clearly communicate the procedures and
> policies relating to transfers ,and nothing in the proposal which forces a
> registrar to clearly state the conditions for a successful transfer either
on
> their websites or in their terms of service contracts.
>
> Finally, we have registrars that create their own policies (such as
"unpaid
> status") and utilize loopholes to game the process.  The proposal offers
> little comfort to those of us that understand the capacity of these rogue
> registrars to circumvent the system.  If they don't abide by the spirit of
> the rules in place now, how can you possibly expect them to abide by a new
> set of rules without some type of sanctions program as a deterrent to
> continued abusive behavior?  Sure, I know that the idea of sanctions is
> anathema to the registrar constituency, but abusive and rogue behavior
> deserves to be punished, and some of these registrars need to be slammed
down
> hard.
>
> I plan to join the conference call on transfers scheduled for November 11.
I
> encourage others to do the same.  Details may be found at
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00603.html
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1501
*************************