Re: [ga] Legal Briefing

[eric@hi-tek.com]

You just may be my free enterprise hero of the month.
I think you are right.
I could well be wrong.
Your words are well spoken and the truth will be self evident.

hey i have my old network solutions shirt on the chair and my ICANN 2001 t-shirt
on.
What channel are the Shanghai meetings on?
I look forward to the kick off and half time party.
e

"Michael D. Palage" wrote:

> Eric:
>
> I think this thread provides a classic example of why contracting parties
> tend to avoid the noise of ICANN Policy efforts. However, since I never shy
> away from running around in an open field during a lighting storm swinging a
> golf club, let me continue.
>
> I submit that the divergent viewpoints of registries and registrars are self
> evident that no consensus exists on some of these complex issues.
> Additionally, if in fact there was a monopoly as you allege, the registries
> and registrars would be in lock step regarding these proposals.
>
> I never said that people and businesses that register and use domain names
> are not important. They in fact have the ultimate responsibility of speaking
> with their wallet in choosing their registrar of record and what tld they
> register in.
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eric@hi-tek.com [mailto:eric@hi-tek.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 2:29 PM
> To: Michael D. Palage
> Cc: DannyYounger@cs.com; touton@icann.org; ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] Legal Briefing
>
> Damn fine show here,
> In our work we say that "Marketing is education, and education is Marketing"
> I feel educated and marketed by this fine explanation of Registrars
> workings.
>
> The use of the term advocate was most educational.  We here in the GA only
> have representatives.
> How come they get advocates?  I am glad to see that Louis has a direct line
> with registrars and no line what so ever with users.  Makes sense.
> Unlike these highly important registrars and registries we will continue to
> have direct communication with users. And we will reserve the time necessary
> to provide service through effective communication skills.
> It is quite funny that the people who actually pay the money to the company
> are not considered important in the running of the business.  Go Figure!
> Can you spell  M-O-N-O-P-O-L-I-E-S???
> e
>
> "Michael D. Palage" wrote:
>
> > Danny:
> >
> > Not to sound like an attorney, but there is no contractual requirement
> that registrars or registries participate in the DNSO, or its processes.
> Regardless of the level of participation by either registrars or registries,
> such action or inaction does not waive the contractual rights contained in
> their contracts. Although I will work on a more detailed response to your
> questions below during my flight to China, I wanted to give you some quick
> answers.
> >
> > Question 1: The Registrar Constituency hase had a sort of revolving door
> of representation in the Whois task force. Although Paul Kane was an initial
> registrar advocate we have had several representatives serving on this Task
> Force: Philip, Ken and Tim. Although some people may find this hard to
> believe, but registrars do have businesses to run and they are not always
> able to devote the necessary resources to play in the DNSO's policy sandbox
> that other people seem to have. I think Ross has been doing a good job of
> advocating the registrar position on the Transfer's Task Force. However, as
> I previously noted as the final recommendations become clearer there is a
> growing number of registrars expressing concern about certain
> recommendations. I do not believe that the registrars nor the registries are
> trying to force the Task Force back to square one. All I believe they are
> trying to do is ensure that their contractual safeguards are preserved.
> >
> > Question 2: The Executive Committee delegates the responsibilities of
> representing the registrars viewpoints to specific representatives. They
> periodically report to the constituency and the executive committee on their
> progress. When a final report is available it is put forth to the
> constituency for a vote. Unlike other constituencies that fail to delegate
> responsibilities to other members, I do not specifically know what has or
> has not been stated to the Task Forces. All I know is what has been
> communicated to me via email, in person meetings, teleconferences, etc. Not
> all communication within the registrar constituency occurs on the listserv.
> >
> > Question 3: I cannot say with certainty why registrar come to me. Maybe
> because I tend to listen and recommend a reasonable and prudent course of
> action based upon the facts and the binding contracts. Registrars and
> registries may chose to contact Louis because he is the general counsel of
> ICANN and registrars and registries have contracts with ICANN. Speaking for
> myself, I contacted Steve Metalitz and raised a number of concerns regarding
> some of the initial recommendations in an earlier Whois draft report. This
> was followed up with some discussions with my registry counterparts. Based
> upon this discussion I am writing a formal response to the Whois Task Force
> showing what I believe is serious fundamental flaws in the report, as well
> as potential recommendations for moving forward with a solution to the
> problem.
> >
> > I guess one of the biggest reasons why people choose not to actively
> participate in the DNSO processes is that there is so much noise on the task
> force and mailing lists, that they prefer to sit back and rely upon the
> contracts they entered into in good faith. The same contracts that allow
> them to employ people, pay rent and taxes, etc. I know this is definitely
> not the answer you were looking for but it is part of the reality we live
> in.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
> > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 10:27 AM
> > To: michael@palage.com; touton@icann.org
> > Cc: ga@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Legal Briefing
> >
> > Michael,
> >
> > You are doubtless aware that I hold no particular fondness for the Task
> Force
> > concept which serves to limit participation rather than encouraging
> > participation and substantive contributions.  We again now find ourselves
> at
> > a point where after initial recommendations have been made, those that
> > haven't had a chance to participate in the policy development process now
> > take issue with the recommendations studiously developed by their peers
> > (bringing us back to square one).
> >
> > While you have called for the rejection of the WHOIS Task Force interim
> > recommendations deeming them to be inconsistent with ICANN’s existing
> > contractual obligations, a violation of ICANN’s mission and core values,
> in
> > conflict with existing technical and market realities, and constituting a
> > treat to the stability of the Internet, I would note that the registrar
> > constituency does indeed have a representative assigned to the WHOIS Task
> > Force, Ken Stubbs, and that I am not aware of any such issues being raised
> by
> > Ken on the Task Force Discussion List.
> >
> > This raises the following questions:
> >
> > 1.  Why aren't members of the registrar constituency following the policy
> > development process within the TF, interacting with their
> > representative-of-record on the Task Force, and instructing him to post
> their
> > comments to the list for consideration by other stakeholders prior to the
> > publication of an Interim Report?
> > 2.  Why hasn't your representative raised such issues for discussion on
> the
> > TF list if they indeed are of the magnitude that you describe and are of
> such
> > great concern to the constituency?
> > 3.  Why do your members find it necessary to go straight to either
> yourself
> > or to ICANN staff with their complaints and concerns rather than going to
> > their TF representative so that issues might be addressed in mutual
> > consultation prior to arriving at what is now the Interim Report stage?
> >
> > What I am seeing is more of an attempt to derail a process than to
> cooperate
> > within the process itself.  Constantly going back to square one serves
> > nobody's interests.  If the process itself is flawed, then perhaps we need
> to
> > take another hard look at the process and consider appropriate changes
> before
> > we again head down this profitless road, but acting to do no more than
> trash
> > the work of others that have diligently cooperated for well over a year to
> > arrive at recommendations is not the best possible way forward.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Danny
> >
> > --
> > 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