Re: [ga] Re: Request for a Working Group

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

Joanna and all assembly members,

  Well ICANN is accountable.  It is just that they are rarely HELD
accountable.  The cost of doing so can be very high as well.  Hence
another aspect of the problem.  The second level of oversight is the
DOC/NTIA.  They however are also a bit budget strapped at the moment
as well as personnel strapped, and therefore cannot do an adequate job
of oversight of ICANN as they might otherwise do, or should do.
This therefore means that the ultimate oversight is the
Registrant/consumer/stakeholders/user.  But individually they
are weak, and the ICANN staff know this all to well.  Collectively
however they can be a force, which is why the ICANN staff fears
something like the AT-Large or an IDNO, and will do anything to
prevent such organizations from forming through whatever means
they can muster.  So far, they have been relatively successful, with
INEGroup as the only exception of significant ability...

Joanna Lane wrote:

> ICANN contracts are only likely to be better than contracts made by an
> individual if it also takes on the role of monitoring quality of the
> service, checking contract compliance and reviewing user satisfaction. There
> is an argument to be made for encouraging some form of centralized oversight
> to prevent fraud and so on, while stopping short of contract enforcement.
> This would be better than an ICANN that agrees contracts without being
> accountable, which is the worst of all worlds.
>
> Joanna
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Joop
> Teernstra
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 6:43 PM
> To: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> Cc: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Request for a Working Group
>
> At 18:18 26/03/02 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> >That's easy: they choose carefully where to register.  Either they trust
> >the registrar and its reputation, or they register close to home, where
> >it's easier to get the legal process in action....or they use a register
> >in a jurisdiction with good consumer law.
>
> Sorry, Michael I see this "market-mechanism" as not-working for the moment.
>
> 1. people don't want to transfer registrations already registered (too much
> hassle, too much risk that something may go wrong)
> 2. many jurisdictions have worse consumer laws than the US or have local
> registrar monpolies.
> 3. Registrar reputations are still in the process of being made. People
> have no way  to distinguish the cows from the cowboys.:)
>
> >The contract mechanism is only a good means of protecting consumers if
> >they get to bargain for it.  They don't, so it isn't.
>
> That is true. And that is why people sign up for Icann at Large  hoping to
> get in that position.
>
> --Joop
>
> --
> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes 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:  972-244-3801 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