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

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

A distributed environment is like a population. I never heard of any 
government contracting the law individually with each of its citizens. Even 
privileges (private law) are limited and establish derogations to the law, 
not full substitution. Also privileges are to give a benefit to someone, 
not to benefit the clerk writing them: in the ICANN system privileges are 
adding constraints to a non existing common law. Anyone heard about such a 
baroque legal system? If yes how long did it last?
Jefsey


On 20:53 26/03/02, Jonathan Weinberg said:
>Danny --
>
>         ICANN has by now signed a variety of contracts, drafted without
>community input or consensus support, under which it has come to regulate
>a bunch of different aspects of registry and registrar conduct.  Many of
>us think that ICANN is using these contracts to control matters that are
>*not* "squarely within its purview."  We can argue about whether any
>particular piece of regulation is within ICANN's mission, properly
>understood, but that argument has to turn on the nature of the regulation
>in question.  The mere fact that regulation has been incorporated in a
>contract doesn't answer the question whether it is within ICANN's mission
>-- and the ideal of consensus shouldn't bar people from questioning
>contract provisions that didn't result from consensus processes.  (I'll
>grant you that the process leading to the registrar contract looks a lot
>better, from a consensus standpoint, when you compare it to the egregious
>registry contract negotiation process . . . )
>
>Jon
>
>
>Jonathan Weinberg
>weinberg@msen.com
>
>
>On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
>
> > Michael,
> >
> > Whether you like it or not, we currently regulate the registrar 
> community by
> > way of contracts (such as the Registrar Accreditation Agreement).  These
> > contracts specify registrar obligations, and how they are to attend to
> > "Business Dealings, Including with Registered Name Holders" (section 
> 3.7).
> > This puts the issue of registrar practices squarely within ICANN's 
> purview,
> > and creating modifications to this contract language indeed falls 
> within the
> > ICANN consensus process.
> >
> > Clearly we have a right to establish provisions to curtail nefarious 
> business
> > practices in order to "enhance user choice and satisfaction".
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
>
>
>Jonathan Weinberg
>weinberg@msen.com
>
>
>
>--
>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-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