Re: Structure and values (was Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion)

["Ray Fassett" <ray@fassett.org>]

Todd Glassey writes:

"The real issue is ICANN's gross failure to force its Registrar's to enforce
the existing regulations and...."

Richard Henderson writes:

"....here with the WLS decision, where it doesn't matter who participates
or what they are saying, the ICANN politburo will still do whatever they
want on behalf of a limited commercial group whose interests it seeks to
uphold at all costs."

Maybe ICANN has been advised that it cannot successfully defend its
contractural position in court.  Just my conjencture but, to this end,
maybe ICANN should look to define a narrow scope and mission so that it can
enforce and defend if necessary the language (read: market regulations)
contained in its contracts (obtained by "cooperative agreement").  Maybe,
as a private entity, ICANN is outside its boundary should it discredit a
registrar over WHOIS compliance (a regulatory policy) or stop a registry
from introducing a new product service offering (a regulatory policy).
Maybe a third party, court of law would set this precedent and ICANN has no
interest in going down this path with one of its registries (thus the WLS
decision).  Maybe all this effort spent by so many people to arrive at
consensus would have a greater rate of return if ICANN, as a private
entity, more narrowly defined its mission and the regulatory scope it will
engage in (and NOT engage in) where its registry and registrar contracts
are concerned.

Ray

-- 



--
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