RE: [ga] Transfers - Bankruptcy Clause

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

Joanna, can you draft the question/(s) related to the bankruptcy issue and get Dan to submit them. Actually all of the TF members are asked to do outreach on the survey so that it is "useful" .. we won't get it all right, but we can,  over a short few days/couple of weeks, get some useful input to modify the survey.

Ross is right that this topic didn't come up. BUT, that is the purpose of this outreach. To capture issues like this.

I'm not commenting on what changes the TF makes in the survey. I am noting that if you/someone can submit a question, that advances the cause. 

I wonder if it belongs in a separate section in the question: Other issues which concern you. I haven't talked to anyone on the TF, but your emails made me wonder about how to capture this issue more clearly.



MC

-----Original Message-----
From: Joanna Lane [mailto:jo-uk@rcn.com]
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 8:39 PM
To: Ross Wm. Rader; DannyYounger@cs.com; ga@dnso.org
Subject: [ga] Transfers - Bankruptcy Clause



Look Ross, as you very well know, it's nonsense to say "it never came up in
discussion", it has been raised on this very list only recently.
Furthermore, you have often accommodated my suggestions in the past when it
suited, so do not start throwing GA Reps in my face as if there is some
procedural hurdle I have to pass in order for my request to be acknowledged.
You, meaning the TF in general, have a duty to establish how Registrants
feel about all aspects of the Transfer process, and to that end, I have put
the Task Force on notice that the bankruptcy clause is causing registrants,
at least the ones I know, some concern.

At the very least, this clause is fuzzy and needs clarifying. *After* some
discussion, some vague notion arose that it is for the benefit of registrars
who have large US multinational corporate clients who, they imagine, may
well run up large bills for unrelated services and therefore this clause
provides them with some means to recoup possible losses by freezing a
possible asset under circumstances of a pending bankruptcy, notwithstanding
that "pending bankruptcy" is not defined in the agreement and certainly
holds no legal meaning outside the US territory.

Whatever it's purpose, that is of absolutely no concern whatsoever to the
individual private citizen who registers a domain name, pays his
registration bill of about $10.00 a year, then wishes to Transfer
Registrars. From that class of Registrant's perspective, this clause is
onerous, outrageous and open to abuse. How would you like it if you could
not change your long distance phone carrier at home unless you provide the
losing carrier with your social security number and wait for them to confirm
that you are not pending bankruptcy?

Now, either you address this issue by adding a simple question about the
bankruptcy clause to the questionnaire, which I am quite willing to help
you, Dan, or whoever, write, or I will be the first to accuse this Task
Force of only being prepared to ask questions on issues for which it already
has the answers from registrars.

Be careful not to shoot yourself in the foot.

Joanna

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 1:32 PM
To: Joanna Lane; DannyYounger@cs.com; ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Survey


It never came up during any discussion. As mentioned previously however, its
not too late to get additions dropped in via Dan (as the GA constituency
rep...)

Thanks,

-rwr

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal
Realname Keyword: Heathrow Declaration
Old Skool DNS Address: http://www.byte.org/heathrow


----- Original Message -----
From: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>; <DannyYounger@cs.com>; <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 11:58 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Survey


> Ross,
> Where is the question about the bankruptcy clause?
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Ross Wm.
> Rader
> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 6:41 PM
> To: DannyYounger@cs.com; ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Survey
>
>
> Danny - feel free to stand by them, but you incorrect in this case. Not
> having bothered to check the link that you presented as proof of some
> conspiracy, I can't talk on an informed basis concerning which draft of
the
> survey that you are talking about - however, this document has undergone
> many revisions - all based on input and criticism put forth by the
drafting
> team.
>
> At this point, I can't remember who was even responsible for putting
forward
> the first draft (I can look it up when I get back to the office if its
> important) - but I do distinctly remember a number of conversations,
dozens
> of emails and a conference call or two between thedrafting team members
> through the preparation of this draft.
>
> The important task now is for the TF to read through this draft, tear it
> apart (or not) and get it into the hands of users that aren't
> directly/officially represented in ICANN.
>
> -rwr
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
> To: <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 12:18 PM
> Subject: [ga] Re: Survey
>
>
> > Dan Steinberg has asked that I retract the accusation that:
> >
> > "Why don't you come clean, and admit that this is solely Ross's
> > work-product that you modified only in the most minor of ways"
> >
> > I stand by my comments, and have produced a side-by-side comparison
> between
> > the survey questions created by Ross and the survey questions produced
by
> the
> > "small group of TF members" posted at
http://www.icannworld.org/survey.htm
> >
> > Let the GA decide if anything more than minor modifications are present.
> > --
> > 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
>
>
> --
> 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

--
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