Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion

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

>
> In the document that is not "your draft", it is written:
>
> "The Task Force suggests that, after further examination, that apparent
> authority is a well-defined legal concept and the lack of specific
definition
> within the relevant body of ICANN policy should not be a barrier to the
work
> of this task force to make policy recommendations."
>
> Why continue to be obtuse?  Is there a particular reason why you will not
> provide a specific definition?

Speaking from a drafting team perspective, what is obtuse about the present
legal definition of AA? IANAL, but in agency law, the specific definition is
pretty clear.

> Further, what problems do you have with the
> Australian model as cited?

Speaking from a personal/Tucows/Constituency member perspective the
Australian model is one of the finest examples of avoiding the tough
problems that I have seen in a long time. I am sure that it works within the
confines of their limited scope, but until CP/IP gains wider support, using
tree-bark to conduct business in a global market over the Internet remains
silly.

With that being said, I am sure that if there is any interest within the TF
in exploring the .au model then I am sure that it will be discussed. My
initial reaction is that it won't be a very productive discussion in that it
solves the wrong problems.

-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