Re: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

Many apologies and this will be my last reply for the day -  I am sorry but
I should have been clearer in my response below that I think that this open
competition should be a regular thing. That the contracts should regularly
expire and then an open competition should be held for that slot. It will
keep the registrars on their toes and allow others into the mix. That being
said maybe a contract is awarded either for 4,5 or 10 years at most. But
there also in this process has to be a method of bouncing a registrar for
not providing a basic level of service.

And as I have said I am also very concerned for the procedural models for
what happens when one registrar goes belly-up. This is happening more and
more these days and well, it would cripple any number of businesses if their
registrars and/or DNS service providers happened to die out from under them.
And since it is really unlikely that the registrar would send any notice
ahead of time to the customer let alone a letter that said "Hey sucker - so
long - its been nice and next Thursday at noon we are no more...Ahahahahaha"
so the net-net is that the registrar would very likely just close up one day
and with no notice leave their customers high and dry.

And rather than to force the Registrars customers to deal with this kind of
gross negligence in civil court it would be better to put in place a
failover model that was to be implemented and some snapshot of every
registrar's maps such that if one of them dies the others could pickup the
pieces.

Just my 2 cents

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message -----
From: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
To: "Dan Steinberg" <synthesis@videotron.ca>; "Darrell Greenwood"
<lists1@mac.com>
Cc: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@does-not-exist.org>; "James Love"
<james.love@cptech.org>; "General assembly list" <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote


> I have some more wording changes.
>
> See inline below.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Steinberg" <synthesis@videotron.ca>
> To: "Darrell Greenwood" <lists1@mac.com>
> Cc: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@does-not-exist.org>; "James Love"
> <james.love@cptech.org>; "General assembly list" <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 1:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote
>
>
> > After mulling it over in my mind for a few days....I suggest the
> > slightly modified text as follows:
> >
> > The GA  sends a mandate too the US Department of Commerce and to the US
> Federal Trade Commission
>
> to  setup and require for perpetude,
>
> > an open
> > competition for the services now provided by ICANN
>
> ASO's. This new competition would address the need to develop both a US
> specific and an international framework for DNS management.  The rationale
> for mandating this rebid is that ICANN has dramatically changed the
intitial
> terms of refence for its own and the overall operaitons of the name space,
> and is at this time proposing even further changes. These proposed changes
>
> > have met extensive opposition in the Internet community and go even
> > further from the original terms of reference. The rebid would allow the
>
> DoC and the US Federal trade Commission to compell the ICANN board to
> address the critical initiatiaves and evolutionary requirements for
> restructuring; the alternatives offered by others for managing key
Internet
> resources; and provide for increased scrutiny in the form of a public
record
> as a part of the ongoing ICANN process audit.
>
>
> TTFN
> Todd
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Darrell Greenwood wrote:
> > >
> > > On 5/8/02 at 10:36 AM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote :
> > >
> > > >On 2002-05-08 04:25:49 -0400, James Love wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>"The GA asks the the US Department of Commerce to have an open
> > > >>competition for the services now provided by ICANN, provided that
> > > >>the new competition would address the need to develop an
> > > >>international framework for DNS management.  The rationale for
> > > >>asking for a rebid is that ICANN has dramatically changed the
> > > >>intitial terms of refence for ICANN, and is proposing even further
> > > >>changes, which have met extensive opposition in the Internet
> > > >>community. The rebid would allow the DoC to consider both the
> > > >>ICANN board proposal for restructuring, and alternatives offered
> > > >>by others for managing key Internet resources."
> > >
> > > I support this text.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Darrell
> > > --
> > > 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