Re: [ga] By-passing the DNSO

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Chuck and all remaining assembly members,

  I tend to disagree.  The White Paper and the MoU pretty much outline
that the stakeholders have an obligation and a right to participate in
such proceedings.  To think otherwise is a bit off base.

Somewhere along the line it would be nice if inclusiveness and adherence
to the MoU and White Paper would be observed and enforced....



Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> To suggest that the DNSO should be involved in the sanctions program is
> ABSURD.  Somewhere along the line it would be nice if some sort of
> "reasonable business sense" existed.  But maybe that is asking too much.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: babybows.com [mailto:webmaster@babybows.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 10:19 AM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: [ga] By-passing the DNSO
>
> In a new paragraph added to the Proposed Unsponsored TLD Agreement (3.5.6.)
> which matches the language in the Verisign agreement, the ICANN Staff has
> introduced a provision regarding changes to the proposed "Sanctions Program"
> that effectively eviscerates the policy-recommending role of the DNSO:
>
> "In the event that the gTLD Constituency of the Domain Name Supporting
> Organization proposes a substitute Appendix Y at any time prior to 1 May
> 2002, and ICANN determines (following an appropriate process of public
> notice and comment) that substitution by that Appendix Y would serve the
> interests of the Internet community, the substitution shall be made."
>
> This sanctions program (appendix Y) deals with violations of Subsections
> 3.5.1 through 3.5.5 and Appendix H (certification and separation
> requirements) and Appendix I (Registry Operator's Code of Conduct) of the
> Registry Agreement.  This action to deny the role of the DNSO (supplanting
> it with the role of the gTLD constituency), is akin to allowing the fox to
> propose new rules regarding its own distance and conduct with respect to the
> hen-house.
>
> The "Sanctions Program" also calls for a "Confidential Notice of
> Investigation", which to my view subverts the concept of open public
> evaluation of charges of abuse; this bears further consideration.
>
> Details of proposed sanctions are as follows:
>
> "Sanctions of up to US$10,000 for each violation may be assessed for each
> minor violation found and sanctions of up to US$100,000 for each violation
> may be assessed for each major violation found. The amount of the financial
> sanction shall be proportionate to the violation and other relevant facts."
>
> This "fixed scale" of sanctions effectively allows giant well-financed
> corporations to sustain multiple violations of conduct with relative
> impunity as they can well afford the cost of such fee assessments.  A
> "proportionate scale" tied to the relative size of the registry might be a
> more reasonable consideration.
>
> In the last round of discussions on the Verisign agreement, the DNSO was
> played like a fish on a hook; it was specifically asked for comments to
> focus on the "substantive merits" of the agreements, which then allowed
> Stuart Lynn to make the following comment to the Department of Commerce:
>
> "As this recitation indicates, the ultimate Names Council recommendations to
> ICANN are, in general, not focused on "policy" issues, but rather are
> suggestions about how the proposed new agreements could be modified, by
> changing contractual dates and the like, to make them better agreements in
> the view of those supporting the resolutions. These expressions are
> certainly important, but they can hardly be described as representing the
> kinds of policy issues that are, pursuant to ICANN's bylaws, the initial
> responsibility of the DNSO within the ICANN structure."
>
> We must take a hard look at the policy implications within these proposed
> agreements and argue primarily on the basis of policy.
>
> Sanctions are a punitive enforcement mechanism.  The degree to which
> violations must be met with punishment is a matter of consensus-based
> policy.  There are six other constituencies, as well as unrepresented
> members of the general public, that have a stake in reigning in potentially
> abusive registry conduct.  The DNSO should not be by-passed in this process.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org 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 ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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