Re: [ga] Time to regulate the Re-Sellers

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Objection your both Honors. You are discussing in XXth words using plain 
ICANNese language. We are XXIth as you may know. :-)

What is the difference? "Yes the ICANN is to regulate. No the ICANN is not" 
has IMHO no meaning.

We are not in a regulated environment. We are in a distributed 
international system and whatever someone does it has an impact. Willing or 
not what the ICANN does has an impact. On every thing. Like me having open 
a public nationwide 7000 TLD service today supporting 3.000.000 domain 
names  may have an impact - on my purse first since everythnig is still 
free :-)

Now, what they do not understand is that we are not in a centralized 
federal legal system. Not even in a lose confederative one. We are at high 
sea in international waters. This does not means there is no law and no way 
to enforce them, but that the ways are different. There are Internet rules 
as there are universal navigation rules: BTW they are named the same 
n[aval]etiquette . There are good practices. There is good example. You 
cannot force, but you catalyze and find ways to oblige. Most of all: you 
must make bad things unnecessary or unrewarding. (Black Ivory trade stopped 
when it did not pay anymore because of the progress on the puchasing shore).

Why such a spamming. Because a reseller wants to survive its Registrar in 
selling DNs. Why to sell DNs, why Registrars, why Registrars in a weak 
position?

The problem is that ICANN shows wrong signals and catalyzes badly. The 
contract policy is so opposed to general simple rules that no one wants to 
sign them. Why do you want spammers to respect contracts ccTLDs does not 
wantto sign and no one can enforce. When ICANN starts creating colliders, 
why do you want TLD squatters to care? Why do you want people to care about 
digital divide when .org is first a big money issue.

Great seamen in History had no more to fight: ennemies surrendered when 
seeing their flag. There is a long long way before ICANN is acknowledged 
that kind of respect.

For example fostering competition was not to create a complex competition 
among unnecessary Registrars and hungry resellers, but to permit enough 
TLDs so there would have been quality competition between Registries, and 
consultants could have installed and developed the sites of their 
customers. Who cares about quality? Where are the consumer organizations 
qualifying good Registrars and poor ones - anyway they are blocked by NSI.

jfc

On 19:36 09/04/02, DannyYounger@cs.com said:
>Michael,
>
>I disagree with your conclusion that <<This is not ICANN's mission.  It is
>not a technical issue AT ALL>>
>
>As you well know, ICANN's current mission is not restricted "only" to
>technical matters, as is made clear by the language in the MOU, such as:
>"Collaborate on the design, development, and testing of a plan for
>introduction of competition in domain name registration services"
>
>This part of our Mission calls for the establishment of "policy" to attend to
>competitive concerns.    Perhaps you would like ICANN to re-define its
>mission, but at the moment the creation of policies to govern competitive
>practices is indeed within our mission.
>--
>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