Re: [ga] New domain name policy issue

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

Danny ( or whomever this may really be) and all assembly members,

  Seems that your testing of multiple E-Mail addresses identifying
you as Danny Younger are growing.  However this on seems to
work well...  >;)

  More comments below (DannyYounger@cs.com?) comments))

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> The registrar constituency has been engaged in an ongoing and highly
> contentious domain name policy debate since Stockholm; the issue -- expired
> domain names and recently adopted transfer policies.  For those of you
> interested in reviewing the public archives, the URL is:  <A
> HREF="http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/maillist.html">

  Yes I reviewed these to which you point to.  Seems that last post
even related to transfer policies was on July 6th 2000,
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg00058.html
which doesn't boad well for intense interest in this as a hot item or
serious issue with the registrars.  That's not surprising though given
the continuing debacle of the ICANN Registrars and the lack
of oversight done by both the ICANN BoD and staff as well as
the DOC/NTIA.

>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/maillist.html</A>
>
> What is apparent to many of us is that as a result of recent activities, the
> consumer is being hurt.  Transfer requests are routinely being denied by
> certain registrars, often without explanation, and consumer confusion is
> rampant.  When is a domain name truly expired?  Why hasn't a domain been
> released to the registry after several months of being listed as expired?
> Under what conditions can a transfer be made or not made?  There are as many
> answers as there are registrars because the ICANN Registrar Accreditation
> Agreement provides no set policy.

  A set policy would require policing and intent policing in the early stages.
This was and is not what the ICANN BoD had in mind when pushing trough
the current Registrar agreement and related contract's with Registrars as
neither ICANN not the DOC/NTIA have the ability or even the desire
to do such necessary policing.

>
>
> One should always start a debate on a domain name policy issue by asking, "is
> a 'uniform' consensus-based policy required?"

  As we have indicated on a number occasions the answer is no here.  The
reasons are well documented in the DNSO GA Archives for any and all
to re-read for themselves.

>  There are in fact, many times
> when market mechanisms should be allowed to run unrestricted (as long as
> registrants have the right to vote "with their feet" and walk away from
> unfavorable situations).  In recent months, however, a large number of
> registrants have been denied the opportunity to "walk away" through a
> transfer process because their transfer requests are being denied, often
> forcing them to renew with a given registrar prior to being allowed to depart
> to another such service provider.

  Yes and this is an area that the ICANN BoD and staff created and should
be policing to put and end to such questionable and unprofessional practices.

>
>
> While I applaud the efforts of the registrar constituency to attempt to
> internally resolve these matters to their own mutual satisfaction, and while
> I support what appears to be their desire to bring this issue to the Names
> Council for consideration, I am concerned that the voice of small business
> and the voice of the individual is not being heard in these discussions.

  It has been known for more than a year now that the voice of small business
and individuals is not wanted with respect to any policy process or decision
by the ICANN BoD and staff.

>  In
> my opinion, this is an issue for the GA, and I hope that advocates for a
> Registrants' Bill of Rights will speak up on these matters.

  We have on more than one occasion.  We continue those efforts
working with individual governments as doing so with the ICANN
BoD and staff have met with being either ignored or being accused of
being disruptive.

>
>
> I know that many in this Assembly will be tempted to single-out certain
> registrars.  This is not our goal.  We are a body that should be acting in a
> capacity to bring opposing sides together through a consensus-building
> process in order to establish a mutually acceptable uniform consensus policy
> that benefits the public.  I look forward to further discussions on this
> topic.
>
> Best regards,
> Danny Younger
> (again testing out a new email service)
> --
> 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

Regards,

--
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