Re: [ga] Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> How does a registrar know about a "pending bankruptcy", (meaning, where
are
> they getting their information from), if not by bankruptcy search on the
> registrant?
<snip>

Dan, Joanna - let's put it this way - I am not aware of any strong feelings
that our constituency may have concerning clause number two. If you wish to
raise this, and I hear no objection from our membership, I would consider
William's earlier amendment as friendly and important to the proposition.

It really does not make a lot of sense to debate this to death here if there
is no support or full support for the issue. I am willing to let this one
stand on its own and see what happens if it be your will to pursue this
further.

> Furthermore, to say that Registrars can largely represent Registrants
> because they deal with them on a day to day basis is analogous to the
> abusive parents of a battered child insisting to the Court that a court
> appointed representative for the child is not necessary since they are the
> ones that look after the child and they have taken all comments from the
> child into account where appropriate

No one has made that claim. I have stated however that I have a high level
of awareness about the issues challenging registrants and forsee no conflict
with the policy that I have proposed and their goals.

> Suggesting a single GA representative is satisfactory for representing the
> registrants perspective on a TF that comprises two reps from other
> constituencies is unbalanced and misleading. Unlike the gTLDs, Registrars,
> BC and IPC, the GA does not have secretariat facilities, a budget to
conduct
> outreach, a proper ID verification procedure, or even a way to separate
out
> comments received from registrant members and those from registrar
members.

Why the GA only appointed one rep, I don't really know why. I could tell you
why the registrars appointed only one (we achieved consensus on this issue
and it wasn't deemed necessary to devote further resources to the issue). As
far as registrants not being represented, please tell me that you aren't
serious. The input of the various user constituencies coupled with Dan's
helpful participation has well served the interests of registrants. Further,
the outreach effort will increase the level and quality of input that
registrant's of all stripes have - again, nothing untowards here unless one
takes the rhetoric into account.

-rwr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>; <DannyYounger@cs.com>; <ga@dnso.org>
Cc: <mcade@att.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 9:45 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF


> How does a registrar know about a "pending bankruptcy", (meaning, where
are
> they getting their information from), if not by bankruptcy search on the
> registrant?
>
> No matter how solvent or insolvent the registrant may be, if there is no
> debt at the time of transfer request, then there is no financial reason to
> deny it, and conversely, if there is an outstanding account, the account
> would need to be settled before the domain is released. What is your
> problem? Why does any registrar need to pry so deeply into a registrant's
> private financial affairs simply to effect a service change worth around
> $10.00 per annum?
>
> Furthermore, to say that Registrars can largely represent Registrants
> because they deal with them on a day to day basis is analogous to the
> abusive parents of a battered child insisting to the Court that a court
> appointed representative for the child is not necessary since they are the
> ones that look after the child and they have taken all comments from the
> child into account where appropriate.
>
> Suggesting a single GA representative is satisfactory for representing the
> registrants perspective on a TF that comprises two reps from other
> constituencies is unbalanced and misleading. Unlike the gTLDs, Registrars,
> BC and IPC, the GA does not have secretariat facilities, a budget to condu
ct
> outreach, a proper ID verification procedure, or even a way to separate
out
> comments received from registrant members and those from registrar
members.
> All have equal standing in the GA and the whole point of the GA is to
allow
> cross-constituency dialogue, so anything you're going to hear from the GA
is
> already colored by a mix of those whose best interests are in conflict
with
> registrants. When you mix apples with oranges, you can expect to have it
> pointed out.
>
> Regards,
> Joann
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 3:01 AM
> To: Joanna Lane; DannyYounger@cs.com; ga@dnso.org
> Cc: mcade@att.com
> Subject: Re: [ga] Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF
>
>
> >
> > False. As a Registrant, I provided feedback to the Registrars through
Ross
> > Radar over a period of time before this final paper was published, and
in
> > particular objected to the proposed clause relating to the Registrar's
> > ability to conduct a bankruptcy search on the Registrant, that allows
the
> > Registrar to deny a transfer for this reason, notwithstanding that the
> > Registrars have no clue how to conduct a bankruptcy search in every
nation
> > on the globe. Furthermore, not one single person in the community has
ever
> > stated any useful purpose for this clause. This is a matter of invasion
of
> > privacy that I doubt any Registrant would voluntarily agree, yet is
being
> > completely overlooked by the Registrars.
> >
> > Secondly, I made stringent efforts to be included on this task force as
a
> > Registrant representative, mindful to ensure the Registrant community
was
> > included in deliberations, but was thrown off (literally) by Marilyn
Cade,
> > who silenced my voice by denying my posting privileges. Some time later,
a
> > GA Representative was appointed, since when there has been no work done.
> >
> > These are the facts.
> >
>
> How quickly history becomes distorted.
>
> The conversation that we had did indeed center on . No such
> conversation occurred concerning anything remotely related to a registrar
> doing bankruptcy searches on anyone - in fact, no such power is granted to
> Registrars in any contract related to ICANN that I'm aware of. Further,
> these conversations occurred in the context of preparation of the best
> practices document and not the TF. Each comment received on the RC
Transfers
> BP doc were taken into account and included where appropriate.
>
> Second, I believe that your participation as a registrant representative
was
> not permitted simply because you do not represent registrants. Once a GA
> the registrars capability
> to deny a transfer based on a registrant "pending bankruptcy".
>
> -rwr
>
>
>

--
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