RE: Re[2]: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Michael, that's the critique. Where's the "here's what i can do to
contribute to a solution?" Or do you only critique? 

and if that is the case, then who offers solutions?

Marilyn
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
[mailto:froomkin@law.miami.edu]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 2:24 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: 'William X. Walsh'; Eric Dierker; 'marc@venster.nl'; ga@dnso.org
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN


Had ICANN set performace standards rather than command and control I think
that would have done.  It chose to be in control.  And then not to
exercise any quality control.  And to delay its review by a year.  

The worst of all worlds, I'd say.  

On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> One item where I disagree with your interpretation, but I can be wrong..
> 
> I don't recall that ICANN was ever in a position to say that every
registrar
> would be free to have their own dispute resolution policies, based on the
> input received in the White Paper process.  I didn't go back and research
> it, but if my memory is right,  I believe it was a big issue from the
> beginning that there be standard ICANN policies, which all accredited
> registrars would adhere to, to prevent forum shopping. Selecting different
> resources to implement the standard policies agreed to by ICANN for
> accredited registrars is indeed a different thing.
> 
> Not dwelt on but worth of note is that there was also much discussion
about
> the need to hold the registrar and registry "harmless" in these disputes.
> Some, perhaps not you, new registrars were very committed to ensuring that
> the adopted process prevented their being tied up in endless litigation
over
> disputed names.  Achieving an ICANN approved policy, which they can
> implement, was part of helping to achieve that goal. (Which I personally
> strongly support,by the way. I would not want to see registrars in a
> position of being drawn into disputes and law suits). 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:william@userfriendly.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 11:39 PM
> To: Eric Dierker
> Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; 'marc@venster.nl'; ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re[2]: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN
> 
> 
> Hello Eric,
> 
> Friday, March 23, 2001, 11:28:19 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:
> 
> > I am sorry Mr. Walsh but you must back up these statements with at least
a
> little
> > bit of facts.  I have reread the faqs and I still challenge anyone to
> educate me
> > on my assumption that this proposes no fundamental changes.
> 
> You can assume what you want, while they go ahead like they have in
> the past and shut your legs out from under you.
> 
> Much like they did when originally every registrar was supposed to be
> free to select their own dispute policies, but then in practice later
> were forced to adopt the UDRP.
> 
> What they SAY and what they MEAN are two different things, and those
> of us who are not new to the scene have learned to read ICANN-ese and
> to tell when this is happening.
> 
> This is what is happening, the writing is on the wall, and has been
> documented by many people showing the evidence.
> 
> You can refuse to see it, and issue your little challenges all you
> want.
> 
> But all you are doing is helping them pull this off.
> 
> 

-- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                       -->It's warm here.<--
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html