<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion
Elliot, Ross and all assembly members,
Elliot Noss wrote:
> Jeff:
>
> You misunderstand my comments. I agree with all you say below. When I talk
> of Ross "figuring you out" I mean that in a very positive way, as opposed to
> misinterpreting you, which may have lead you to infer rancor.
I was referring to Ross's recent Rancor towards myself and our members
not from you Elliot. I thought I had made that clear (Below) and the other
day in a post to this forum of Ross's...
>
>
> Hope this helps.
Yeah, it did sorta... Thanks! >:)
>
>
> Regards
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> To: "Elliot Noss" <enoss@tucows.com>
> Cc: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>; "gen full" <ga-full@dnso.org>
> Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 10:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion
>
> > Elliot and Ross,
> >
> > Elliot, first off I would appreciate these or any comments dealing
> > with actual DNSO and DNSO GA business to be kept on list.
> > So I am responding here back to the GA in my following response...
> >
> > I, and quite a number of our members have been very supportive
> > os several ideas that Ross has put forth in the past. I just can't
> > figure out why he has such rancor towards myself and on occasions
> > towards our members. I and a number of our members are also
> > not sure if Ross or tucows is on the side of the registrants or
> > the registrars in what he says below or not. Hence my specific
> > clarification (below ) and "Please Advise"... ???
> >
> > Elliot Noss wrote:
> >
> > > now thats karma. you figure jeff out for once and all and he heartily
> > > supports you!
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> > > To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
> > > Cc: "gen full" <ga-full@dnso.org>
> > > Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 4:40 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion
> > >
> > > > Ross and all assembly members,
> > > >
> > > > Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I think we're diving down into semantic extremely quickly (I
> think) - to
> > > > > circle back, why is AA "a bad thing" and what is the
> counter-proposal
> > > that
> > > > > replaces it with a "good thing"?
> > > >
> > > > I agree with you here also Ross if you mean or are in around about
> way
> > > > suggesting that a counter-proposal would include specific language
> > > > that "AA" ( Apparent Authority) resides with the Registrant, NOT
> > > > the Registrar or the Registry for any specific Domain Name...
> > > > If not, than we, and all of our members that are your, and other
> > > registrars
> > > > customers are decidedly NOT in agreement... Please advise.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Not being a lawyer, perhaps I'm failing to
> > > > > grasp the significance of some small nuance here, and if that is the
> > > case, I
> > > > > will certainly defer. *But*, I still believe that the draft that is
> on
> > > the
> > > > > table is pretty responsible with the exception of the EA definition.
> > > And, as
> > > > > much as I would like to continue this discussion, I fail to see
> where it
> > > > > solves the portability issue that has been hanging around for the
> last
> > > > > umpteen months.
> > > > >
> > > > > The fact is that (tens of thousands of) registrants that *have been
> > > validly
> > > > > identified as being legitimately representative of the interests of
> the
> > > > > registrant* are finding it difficult, if not impossible, to move
> domain
> > > > > names away from a registrar to one that better suits their taste. It
> is
> > > > > certainly my view that this is the complete scope of the problem
> that
> > > must
> > > > > be fixed - and, no one to date has been able to convincingly
> demonstrate
> > > > > otherwise.
> > > >
> > > > Very much agreed here. This is also true to an extent with Delete
> > > > as well...
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So, if this is the case, then why have we spent over a year on an
> issue
> > > > > (elapsed DNSO time, not elapsed NC time) that can be very simply
> fixed
> > > by
> > > > > removing the loophole in the contract that allows precious few
> > > registrars to
> > > > > play games and wreak havoc on their registrants?
> > > >
> > > > A very good question here as well Ross.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Another challenge for the GA - read the registrar constituency
> proposal
> > > that
> > > > > has been on the table since October. (you can find it here
> > > > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00152.html). If
> the
> > > > > consensus is that it sucks and needs to be scrapped and/or
> significantly
> > > > > modified, or even slightly improved - then let's discuss that. If
> this
> > > > > doesn't sound reasonable, then produce a counter-proposal and get it
> > > into
> > > > > Dan's hands. Individual proposals carry just as much weight as those
> > > > > generated by groups at this point - the key is to get to the ideas,
> not
> > > > > debate which "idea" has more support*. The alternative to an
> effective
> > > DNSO
> > > > > consensus policy process determining what happens on this issue is
> that
> > > the
> > > > > registrars take the proposal off the table, abandon the DNSO
> consensus
> > > > > policy process and incorporate the current proposal into a binding
> Code
> > > of
> > > > > Conduct.
> > > >
> > > > A "Code of Conduct" unless incorporated in an amendment to the
> > > > existing Registrar contract that has been voted upon by any and all
> > > > registrants that wish to participate, would be huge mistake and
> > > > likely incur further legal wrangling that is both unnecessary and
> > > > ill advised...
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I've pulled everyone off the cc list, for the simple reason that
> this
> > > > > message is directed at the DNSO, not at anyone one in particular
> > > (including
> > > > > Dan to whom sparked this response)...
> > > > >
> > > > > -rwr
> > > > >
> > > > > *That part comes soon enough.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Dan Steinberg" <synthesis@videotron.ca>
> > > > > To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
> > > > > Cc: <DannyYounger@cs.com>; <ga@dnso.org>; <mcade@att.com>;
> > > > > <roessler@does-not-exist.org>; <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>;
> > > > > <RJS@lojo.co.nz>; <nick.wood@nom-iq.com>;
> <grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz>;
> > > > > <crusso@verisign.com>; <mcf@uwm.edu>; <orobles@nic.mx>;
> > > > > <james.love@cptech.org>
> > > > > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 5:12 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion
> > > > >
> > > > > > To be more precise...that gets you only part of the way. There is
> > > > > > another party to the transaction who may or may not be bound by
> this.
> > > > > > and the 'may or may not'...could vary a lot depending on the fact
> > > > > > pattern.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To be more precise (and perhaps less bold ;) Registrars and
> > > Registries
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > agreed to the terms under which transfers will be conducted
> > > according to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > laws in the jurisdictions that I mentioned. Everything else
> flows
> > > from
> > > > > > > there.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -rwr
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Dan Steinberg" <synthesis@videotron.ca>
> > > > > > > To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: <DannyYounger@cs.com>; <ga@dnso.org>; <mcade@att.com>;
> > > > > > > <roessler@does-not-exist.org>;
> <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>;
> > > > > > > <RJS@lojo.co.nz>; <nick.wood@nom-iq.com>;
> > > <grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz>;
> > > > > > > <crusso@verisign.com>; <mcf@uwm.edu>; <orobles@nic.mx>;
> > > > > > > <james.love@cptech.org>
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 2:53 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > actually...I beg to differ. The relevant jurisdiction claimed
> by
> > > one
> > > > > > > > party is that. Just wait till it goes to court before making
> such
> > > bold
> > > > > > > > assertions please?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > agreement on the rest.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This is an international environment we are dealing with
> here
> > > > > folks.
> > > > > > > A
> > > > > > > > > > good chunk of the world does not even operate under common
> > > > > law...so
> > > > > > > > > > agency law as Ross learned it...is totally inapplicable.
> there
> > > are
> > > > > > > > > > analogous concepts, yes. but the correspondence and
> statute,
> > > and
> > > > > > > caselaw
> > > > > > > > > > and interpretation and legal foundations...are completely
> > > > > different.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Actually no - for 99% of the transfers, the relevant
> > > jurisdiction is
> > > > > > > > > Virginia or Delaware.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think Danny Younger makes a good point. So why not
> focus on
> > > > > coming
> > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > > > with a definition we all want to see inserted into
> contractual
> > > > > terms
> > > > > > > > > > like the agreements between registrant and registrar, etc?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think that's the whole purpose of this exercise. Problem
> > > being,
> > > > > > > despite
> > > > > > > > > the constant criticism from some quarters, there isn't a lot
> of
> > > > > drafting
> > > > > > > > > going on. The core of a successful task force will always be
> > > > > competing
> > > > > > > > > proposals surrounding by cogent debate. Without it, nothing
> > > > > effective
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > really be accomplished.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I strongly dare the GA to put together a document such as
> you
> > > have
> > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > Dan. The TF needs this.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -rwr
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Dan Steinberg
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> > > > > > > > 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
> > > > > > > > Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
> > > > > > > > J9B 1N1 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Dan Steinberg
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> > > > > > 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
> > > > > > Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
> > > > > > J9B 1N1 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > 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 124k members/stakeholders 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
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders 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
> >
> >
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders 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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|