Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1603
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Thursday, February 20 2003         Volume 01 : Number 1603

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 22:03:43 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees

Danny, Jeff, and all former DNSO GA members,

  I think you could have been a little more direct in your reaponse/comments
here Danny.  However most likely caught the actual meaning of your comments
regarding Registrars, and more importantly, Registries, errant business
practices which for now, ICANN are willing or knowhow to address
adequately and ethically.

  I will of course be more blunt here to your accurate, although overly
politically correct comments/remarks to Mr. Nueman and other operators
of Registries and Registrars.  It is now and has been clear, that the
decisions in MdR 2000 "Selecting" the present Registries for .BIZ and
.INFO, amongst other TLD's "Selected" at that ICANN meeting via
a questionable "Lottery" process have borne out as we predicted
and stated to be a future horrendous and destabilizing set of decisions
by the than ICANN BoD, leaving us with destabilizing Registries
such as Nuelevel, Nuestar, and Affilias in particular.  Such horrific,
and despicable business practices perpetrated on unsuspecting Registrants
by these entities, is far past the point of them needing to have
their "Accreditation" removed without delay.  In the mean time,
near future legal actions will be sought and through those actions,
hopefully the principals of Nuelevel, Nuestar, Afilias, and PIR,
will extract adequate financial impact and remuneration as to
significantly aid in changing the business practices and attitudes
of these obviously disruptive organizations.

[email-masked] wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> Regarding the dispute resolution procedure contemplated in the Transfers
> Final Report -- If, as the language of the recommendation indicates, a
> dispute resolution may be administered by a "pertinent Registry", the
> presumption is that the Registry is entitled to set a fee for such services.
> As in the case of the Redemption Grace Period (where a registry has set an
> initial $85 charge and then registrars proceed to gouge the registrant to the
> full extent of their greed), I fully expect to see registrars continuing to
> screw registrants in similar fashion via the transfers dispute resolution
> process.
>
> As the cost analysis in the Transfers report fails to address this issue,
> could you perhaps hazard a guess as to the amount of the fee to be set by a
> Registry for such services?  This will then help to determine the level of
> extortion we can ultimately expect from registrars in the transfers dispute
> process.
> --
> 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 LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

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

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 23:19:31 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees

> If there is a dispute over a transfer, providers (registrars/registries)
> should be expected to handle it, period.

I wish it were that easy, but it is not.  To the extent that the registroids
get involved in making determinations in transfer disputes, even if they
agree, they expose themselves to liability if they are wrong.

> If they do not, there are legal
> avenues.

Quite often, there are not.  And what legal avenues exist are pretty narrow,
in view of the standard registration contract terms.

>  Why should a registrant have to
> spend hundreds or thousands of dollars when there is a transfer mess?  Who
> will benefit?  Registrars should be held accountable for transfers, as
> should registries.  If an error is made - fix it.

Again I wish it were that simple, or that the "fix" was so obvious to all
concerned.  Your comment about hundreds or thousands of dollars doesn't fit
well with your "legal avenues" comment.  What legal avenues *don't* cost
thousands of dollars?

> That's pretty simple.  If a registrant files a complaint about a transfer,
> follow the trail and fix the problem.  If it was fraud, get law
> enforcement involved.  If it was an error, reverse it and refund any money
> collected.

I have seen quite a few situations where various parties concerned really
don't know exactly what happened, but they disagree.  Here's an outline of a
real situation that came up recently:

1.  Registrant A forgot to renew domain name.

2.  Registrant B registered the domain name after it dropped.

3.  Registrant A then noticed that B had the domain name.

4.  Convinced that B had hi-jacked the domain name, A persuaded his registrar
to issue a transfer request to get the domain name "back".

5.  B was then pretty well convinced that A had stolen the domain name.

The fact is that A *had* stolen the domain name, but A didn't see it that
way.

Both parties had a "trail" that suggested to each of them that their
perception of events was correct.  It took quite a bit of doing, and you bet
it cost several hundred dollars to get this mess sorted out.  At the
registrar end of things, it took up considerable staff time, for which none
of the registrars was compensated one thin dime.

The real world is just not as simple as "fix the problem" when people have
different views of what "the problem" is, and different sets of evidence
which support their views.  And, in the situation above, each of the parties
was convinced to a certainty that the other party was lying.  Both of the
parties, however, were quite earnest in their convictions.

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

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 23:22:41 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: .BIZ RDRP Disputes

> Yes it is a stupid policy.
> But I think the point was: How can WIPO request a Trademark, when there is
> no requirement for a Trademark according to RDRP!? Is this legal?

Legal?  They can do whatever they want to do, since they are immunized by the
statements required of the complainant upon filing the complaint, and agreed
to by the respondent upon registering the domain name.  You gave up any right
to complain about WIPO when you walked in their door.

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

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 23:28:34 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: (INTA-list) Website Information Re:  Sale of Brands

> For instance, an owner was no longer interested in a
> brand or was no longer using a brand, and wanted to
> determine if a third party had any interest in acquiring it
> for certain consideration.

I've heard a rumor that WIPO is considering implementing a policy under which
a party selling a trademark could be subject to a complaint brought by an
internet domain name registrant, which would require the trademark owner to
transfer the trademark to the domain name registrant.

It's just a rumor at this point, though.

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

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 23:28:02 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GNSO WHOIS Task force incorporating final set of comments

George and all former DNSO GA members,

  Indeed we [INEGroup] have submitted our comments as called
upon by the Whois Task force and the DNSO Secretariat.  As
our organization is populated with over 120k stakeholder/registrants.

 In our comments, we also provided supportive comments by others
that submitted similar and supportive comments, concerns, and remarks
from several venues and various areas of perspective.

  I see that your propensity for pervasive inaccurate personal attacks
has not waned or been adequately addressed.  It is my fervent hope
that in the near term you will seek what is obviously a need for
counseling regarding your attitude and behavioral problems Geroge.

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I noticed that in the final comments at:
>
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030219.WhoisTF-accuracy-and-bulkaccess.html
>
> "This comment was submitted by Jeff Williams on behalf of INEGroup. Mr.
> Williams identifies privacy and security concerns as being primary
> concerns. Mr. Williams also has issues with the processes used by the
> Task Force."
>
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc03/msg00016.html
>
> I think that there should be a rule in the future for task forces that
> comments on behalf of "Organizations" provide a link to the website of
> that organization, or at least some evidence that said organization
> actually exists. It leaves the task force open to ridicule and mockery
> that comments from imaginary entities are included in its final report.
>
> See the Jeff Williams FAQ linked at:
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc12/msg00335.html
>
> and in the ensuing thread.
>
> Otherwise, if I had purported to speak for all 30 million Canadians, as
> their "Spokesperson", would I have been allowed to?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

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

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 21:38:26 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GNSO WHOIS Task force incorporating final set of comments

Hello,

- --- Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
>   Indeed we [INEGroup] have submitted our comments as called
> upon by the Whois Task force and the DNSO Secretariat.  As
> our organization is populated with over 120k stakeholder/registrants.

Plonk!

As it's been shown many times in the past, INEGroup is just an
imaginary entity, with a troll at its helm.

If the DNSO/GNSO wants to take all such fake submissions without
filtering for quality, they should at least be clear about that. If
they're not filtering out the 'noise', then they make themselves look
bad, and invite more trolls.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.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: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:00:24 +0100
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ALAC appoints NomCom reps, Chairs and liaisons

Comments are welcome.
=====

http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19feb03.htm

At-Large Advisory Committee Announces Delegates to ICANN's Nominating
Committee, Appointments to ALAC Posts

Marina del Rey, California, USA (19 February 2003) – ICANN's Interim
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) today announced that it selected
five volunteers from five different regions of the world to serve as
members of the Nominating Committee, the new committee that will
select a majority of ICANN's new Board of Directors as well as
individuals to serve in other key positions. The ALAC also announced
the appointment of its members to internal and liaison positions,
including Vittorio Bertola as ALAC Chair.

The At-Large delegates to the Nominating Committee are:

Christian Ahlert (Germany and United Kingdom – citizenship and
residence, respectively) 
Pavan Duggal (India) 
Bret Fausett (USA) 
Didier Kasole (Democratic Republic of Congo) 
Gabriel Piñeiro (Argentina) 
Information on the delegates is included below.

Volunteers were widely solicited by the ALAC, which selected these
five delegates from among a total of 66 diverse, accomplished
volunteers from 30 countries. The ALAC believes this group of
delegates reflects the global interests of the At-Large community and
meets the detailed criteria set forth in ICANN's bylaws, and applauds
their willingness to serve the Internet community.

The Nominating Committee's members, including 12 voting delegates in
addition to the 5 appointed by the ALAC, will serve one-year terms.
The Committee, which is chaired by Linda Wilson, ICANN Board member
and former president of Radcliffe College, will have the immediate
task of selecting select 8 members of the ICANN Board, 5 members of
the ALAC, and 3 members of the GNSO Council.

The ALAC also announced that members Clement Dzidonu and Erick Iriarte
Ahon will serve as ALAC Vice Chairs, and that the ALAC has requested
the following members serve in liaison positions: Thomas Roessler as a
liaison to the GNSO Council/WHOIS Task Force; Wendy Seltzer as a
liaison to the TLD Evaluation Team (TEAC); and Hong Xue as a liaison
to the GNSO Council's Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy
(UDRP) Task Force. The ALAC is awaiting confirmation of the acceptance
of these liaisons, which are expected to bring an individual Internet
user perspective to the various policy and decision making groups, and
keep the ALAC and At-Large community apprised of relevant activities
and their potential effect on individual Internet users.

The ALAC is responsible for considering and providing advice on the
activities of ICANN as they relate to the interests of individual
Internet users (the "At-Large" community). ICANN, as a private sector,
non-profit corporation with technical management responsibilities for
the Internet's domain name and address system, will rely on the ALAC
and its supporting infrastructure to involve and represent in ICANN a
broad set of individual user interests.

Please contact <[email-masked]> with questions relating to
this announcement.

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

Biographies of At-Large delegates to the Nominating Committee:

Christian Ahlert, a Dr. in political science, specializes in
comparative media law and policy, internet regulation and the
inter-relationship of globalization, technology and politics. He is a
longstanding observer of the ICANN process, and was a founding member
of the "NGO and Academic ICANN Study" (NAIS). Ahlert is currently
working at the Programme in Comparative Media Law and Policy at
University of Oxford. Most recently he convened the international
conference "Politics of Code" (http://www.codepolitics.info) 

Pavan Duggal is a practicing Advocate in the Supreme Court of India at
New Delhi, specializing in Cyberlaw & E-Commerce law, and has done
pioneering work in the field of Convergence Law. He is the Founder and
President of Cyberlaw Asia (www.cyberlawindia.com) and has been
associated with UNESCO on Ethical, Legal, and Societal Challenges of
Cyberspace in Asia and the Pacific. Duggal was a member of the former
ICANN Membership Advisory Committee and a member of the former ICANN
Membership Implementation Task Force (MITF).

Bret Fausett is a partner with the law firm of Hancock, Rothert &
Bunshoft, LLP (http://www.hrblaw.com), resident in the firm's Los
Angeles office, with a practice focused on Internet and technology
law. He writes the "Legal Code" column each month for CMP's New
Architect magazine (http://www.newarchitectmag.com/press), and he
maintains a weblog with running news and commentary on the activities
of ICANN (http://www.icann.blog.us).

Didier Kasole is an ICT Consultant and Chief Technology Officer of
Roffe Hitech Internet Service Provider (http://www.jobantech.cd) in
the Democratic Republic of Congo. Mr. Kasole also chairs the
Democratic Republic of Congo Internet Society Chapter, and is a
founding member of the Internet Service Provider Association
Democratic Republic of Congo. He also is an active member of the
African Network Operator Group (http://www.afnog.org), and is an
Instructor at Afnog workshops. Previously, Mr. Kasole maintained the
Aftld (African Top Level Domains) mailing list, and he has been in the
forefront of the development of the Internet in Congo Universities. He
has a Master of Science Physics from the University of Kinshasa, and
is fluent in French, English, Swahili, and Lingala. 

Gabriel Piñeiro is a Computer Law Specialist in Argentina
([email-masked]). He has been active in At-Large organizing,
and was a founding member of the At-Large Organizing Committee
(http://www.at-large.org). Pineiro also is a representative with the
Non Commerical Users Constituency of the GNSO. He is the
Coordinator/Webmaster for the LatinoamerICANN Project
(http://latinoamericann.derecho.org.ar) and also has participated in
other Internet-related projects such as the Group of
Internacionalizarion of Cyberspace (GIC). Pineiro has served as the
alter Webmaster of the Alfa-REDI Community NGO, and as an Advisor of
the Computing Department of the Escuela Superior de Comercio Carlos
Pellegrini (Universidad Nacional de Buenos Aires). 
- -- 
vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
- -------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:55:27 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALAC appoints NomCom reps, Chairs and liaisons

At 09:00 p.m. 20/02/2003, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>Comments are welcome.
>=====
>
>http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19feb03.htm

Top- down appointing is a lot easier than bottom-up electing.

Without electorate, these poor people will nominate Board Members in a 
legitimacy vacuum.

- -joop-

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 08:19:10 -0500
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees

Danny, to be honest the issues as to what fees (if any) to be charged by a
Registry for implementing a dispute process regarding transfer complaints
was not addressed by the Transfer Task Force or Implementation Committee
except that it is understood that a Registry should be able to recover its
costs for administering the disputes. 

I do not mean to "punt" this issue, but for now, since the actual scope of
the dispute process has not been set out and the rules and procedures have
not been drafted, it is impossible for us as registries to tell you what
such a charge (if any) would be.  To give you an example, if a Registry is
only required to merely look at the transaction records and then make a
determination as to whether it appeared on its face that a transfer was
authorized, this would obviously cost a lot less to administer than if we
were required to take in written pleadings (or something similar) with each
party making arguments and make some sort of determination as to which
position is correct.

If these disputes were presided over by neutral third parties (rather than
the registries), then obviously there would be no charge.

My recommendation on going forward would be for a group of interested
parties to take a stab at a first comprehensive draft asto exactly how this
dispute process would work, what remedies could be sought, who pays the
costs, whether penalties could be assessed, etc.  Once that is complete, I
believe the Registries (if we are the dispute providers) can make an
assessment to any associated costs.

I hope that helps.

[email-masked] wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> Regarding the dispute resolution procedure contemplated in the Transfers
> Final Report -- If, as the language of the recommendation indicates, a
> dispute resolution may be administered by a "pertinent Registry", the
> presumption is that the Registry is entitled to set a fee for such
services.
> As in the case of the Redemption Grace Period (where a registry has set an
> initial $85 charge and then registrars proceed to gouge the registrant to
the
> full extent of their greed), I fully expect to see registrars continuing
to
> screw registrants in similar fashion via the transfers dispute resolution
> process.
>
> As the cost analysis in the Transfers report fails to address this issue,
> could you perhaps hazard a guess as to the amount of the fee to be set by
a
> Registry for such services?  This will then help to determine the level of
> extortion we can ultimately expect from registrars in the transfers
dispute
> process.
> --
> 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 LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

- --
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, 20 Feb 2003 06:44:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: .BIZ RDRP Disputes

Easy Judge Berryhill,

I think many world jurisdiction disagree here.
let me see; China, EU, Canada, and Lacnic.
enough said?
e

> 
>> Yes it is a stupid policy.
>> But I think the point was: How can WIPO request a Trademark, when
>> there is no requirement for a Trademark according to RDRP!? Is this
>> legal?
> 
> Legal?  They can do whatever they want to do, since they are immunized
> by the statements required of the complainant upon filing the
> complaint, and agreed to by the respondent upon registering the domain
> name.  You gave up any right to complain about WIPO when you walked in
> their door.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 08:03:25 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees

John and all former DNSO GA members,

John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> > If there is a dispute over a transfer, providers (registrars/registries)
> > should be expected to handle it, period.
>
> I wish it were that easy, but it is not.  To the extent that the registroids
> get involved in making determinations in transfer disputes, even if they
> agree, they expose themselves to liability if they are wrong.
>
> > If they do not, there are legal
> > avenues.
>
> Quite often, there are not.  And what legal avenues exist are pretty narrow,
> in view of the standard registration contract terms.

  In your opinion, this indeed may be true.  However in the Sex.com
case, a legal avenue is pursued.  And that is only one of many such
cases.  More will ensue, as I am sure you already know John.  Legal
approaches are being considered and tried.  Some working, and some
failing.

>
>
> >  Why should a registrant have to
> > spend hundreds or thousands of dollars when there is a transfer mess?  Who
> > will benefit?  Registrars should be held accountable for transfers, as
> > should registries.  If an error is made - fix it.
>
> Again I wish it were that simple, or that the "fix" was so obvious to all
> concerned.  Your comment about hundreds or thousands of dollars doesn't fit
> well with your "legal avenues" comment.  What legal avenues *don't* cost
> thousands of dollars?

  To answer your question, those that are either Pro bono or done
on contingency.  Not all lawyers, or even the best lawyers, charge
up front fees John!  >;)

>
>
> > That's pretty simple.  If a registrant files a complaint about a transfer,
> > follow the trail and fix the problem.  If it was fraud, get law
> > enforcement involved.  If it was an error, reverse it and refund any money
> > collected.
>
> I have seen quite a few situations where various parties concerned really
> don't know exactly what happened, but they disagree.  Here's an outline of a
> real situation that came up recently:
>
> 1.  Registrant A forgot to renew domain name.
>
> 2.  Registrant B registered the domain name after it dropped.
>
> 3.  Registrant A then noticed that B had the domain name.
>
> 4.  Convinced that B had hi-jacked the domain name, A persuaded his registrar
> to issue a transfer request to get the domain name "back".
>
> 5.  B was then pretty well convinced that A had stolen the domain name.
>
> The fact is that A *had* stolen the domain name, but A didn't see it that
> way.
>
> Both parties had a "trail" that suggested to each of them that their
> perception of events was correct.  It took quite a bit of doing, and you bet
> it cost several hundred dollars to get this mess sorted out.  At the
> registrar end of things, it took up considerable staff time, for which none
> of the registrars was compensated one thin dime.

  This is why for instance the California Supreme court is considering
the argument, (This Month I believe) that a domain name is property
once it is registered.  However in your example John, a good one
I might add, Registrant A cannot reasonable claim the Domain
Name was stolen if he/she forgot to renew his/her registration
under the current contractual arrangement.  However, again
as those registry/registrar contracts are of questionable legal
value, the Registrar is indeed in a potential legal situation
that could have been avoided some time ago.  As Joe Sims
the author of these Registry/Registrar contracts was advised
during their draft stages of some of their obvious problems,
the real culprit here is ICANN itself.

>
>
> The real world is just not as simple as "fix the problem" when people have
> different views of what "the problem" is, and different sets of evidence
> which support their views.

  Good point.  It is also true that when potential problem areas are
in advance pointed out regarding contractual language, then defining
"The Problem" as you put it that has been defined or perceived,
was known to become a potential problem before it occurred.
That is just an example of poor contractual language/provisioning.
Thus giving the Registrar a "legal Out" and an avenue for collecting
that "Dime" to which you refer, John.  >;)

>  And, in the situation above, each of the parties
> was convinced to a certainty that the other party was lying.  Both of the
> parties, however, were quite earnest in their convictions.

  Indeed.  And the search for the truth many times starts here...

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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

- --
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, 20 Feb 2003 09:06:00 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees

Jeff,

If a transfer dispute was handled by a neutral 3rd party, I would expect the
charges to be considerably higher than if done by a registry.  Third parties
aren't going to do it for free and someone has to pay for it.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 8:19 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Neuman, Jeff; [email-masked]; icann board address
Subject: RE: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees

Danny, to be honest the issues as to what fees (if any) to be charged by a
Registry for implementing a dispute process regarding transfer complaints
was not addressed by the Transfer Task Force or Implementation Committee
except that it is understood that a Registry should be able to recover its
costs for administering the disputes. 

I do not mean to "punt" this issue, but for now, since the actual scope of
the dispute process has not been set out and the rules and procedures have
not been drafted, it is impossible for us as registries to tell you what
such a charge (if any) would be.  To give you an example, if a Registry is
only required to merely look at the transaction records and then make a
determination as to whether it appeared on its face that a transfer was
authorized, this would obviously cost a lot less to administer than if we
were required to take in written pleadings (or something similar) with each
party making arguments and make some sort of determination as to which
position is correct.

If these disputes were presided over by neutral third parties (rather than
the registries), then obviously there would be no charge.

My recommendation on going forward would be for a group of interested
parties to take a stab at a first comprehensive draft asto exactly how this
dispute process would work, what remedies could be sought, who pays the
costs, whether penalties could be assessed, etc.  Once that is complete, I
believe the Registries (if we are the dispute providers) can make an
assessment to any associated costs.

I hope that helps.

[email-masked] wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> Regarding the dispute resolution procedure contemplated in the Transfers
> Final Report -- If, as the language of the recommendation indicates, a
> dispute resolution may be administered by a "pertinent Registry", the
> presumption is that the Registry is entitled to set a fee for such
services.
> As in the case of the Redemption Grace Period (where a registry has set an
> initial $85 charge and then registrars proceed to gouge the registrant to
the
> full extent of their greed), I fully expect to see registrars continuing
to
> screw registrants in similar fashion via the transfers dispute resolution
> process.
>
> As the cost analysis in the Transfers report fails to address this issue,
> could you perhaps hazard a guess as to the amount of the fee to be set by
a
> Registry for such services?  This will then help to determine the level of
> extortion we can ultimately expect from registrars in the transfers
dispute
> process.
> --
> 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 LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 08:40:30 -0600
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees

Judging from the fees sought by the VeriSign registry for WLS, et al,
a third party could, as well, be significantly less expensive. Let's
deal with the facts as they become clearly known.

Thursday, February 20, 2003, 8:06:00 AM, Gomes, Chuck <[email-masked]> wrote:
GC> Jeff,

GC> If a transfer dispute was handled by a neutral 3rd party, I would expect the
GC> charges to be considerably higher than if done by a registry.  Third parties
GC> aren't going to do it for free and someone has to pay for it.

GC> Chuck

GC> -----Original Message-----
GC> From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:[email-masked]]
GC> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 8:19 AM
GC> To: [email-masked]
GC> Cc: Neuman, Jeff; [email-masked]; icann board address
GC> Subject: RE: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees

GC> Danny, to be honest the issues as to what fees (if any) to be charged by a
GC> Registry for implementing a dispute process regarding transfer complaints
GC> was not addressed by the Transfer Task Force or Implementation Committee
GC> except that it is understood that a Registry should be able to recover its
GC> costs for administering the disputes. 

GC> I do not mean to "punt" this issue, but for now, since the actual scope of
GC> the dispute process has not been set out and the rules and procedures have
GC> not been drafted, it is impossible for us as registries to tell you what
GC> such a charge (if any) would be.  To give you an example, if a Registry is
GC> only required to merely look at the transaction records and then make a
GC> determination as to whether it appeared on its face that a transfer was
GC> authorized, this would obviously cost a lot less to administer than if we
GC> were required to take in written pleadings (or something similar) with each
GC> party making arguments and make some sort of determination as to which
GC> position is correct.

GC> If these disputes were presided over by neutral third parties (rather than
GC> the registries), then obviously there would be no charge.

GC> My recommendation on going forward would be for a group of interested
GC> parties to take a stab at a first comprehensive draft asto exactly how this
GC> dispute process would work, what remedies could be sought, who pays the
GC> costs, whether penalties could be assessed, etc.  Once that is complete, I
GC> believe the Registries (if we are the dispute providers) can make an
GC> assessment to any associated costs.

GC> I hope that helps.

GC> [email-masked] wrote:

>> Jeff,
>>
>> Regarding the dispute resolution procedure contemplated in the Transfers
>> Final Report -- If, as the language of the recommendation indicates, a
>> dispute resolution may be administered by a "pertinent Registry", the
>> presumption is that the Registry is entitled to set a fee for such
GC> services.
>> As in the case of the Redemption Grace Period (where a registry has set an
>> initial $85 charge and then registrars proceed to gouge the registrant to
GC> the
>> full extent of their greed), I fully expect to see registrars continuing
GC> to
>> screw registrants in similar fashion via the transfers dispute resolution
>> process.
>>
>> As the cost analysis in the Transfers report fails to address this issue,
>> could you perhaps hazard a guess as to the amount of the fee to be set by
GC> a
>> Registry for such services?  This will then help to determine the level of
>> extortion we can ultimately expect from registrars in the transfers
GC> dispute
>> process.
>> --
>> 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

GC> Regards,

GC> --
GC> Jeffrey A. Williams
GC> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
GC> ================================================================
GC> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
GC> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
GC> E-Mail [email-masked]
GC> Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

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

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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1603
*************************