[ga] RE: WLS legal and policy concerns with regards to registrar agreements

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Thank you for your participation, George. I've posted this to the list, as requested.

Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: George Kirikos [mailto:gkirikos@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 12:43 AM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: ga@dnso.org; cclark@dotster.com; gdecarlo@dotster.com;
stahura@enom.com
Subject: WLS legal and policy concerns with regards to registrar
agreements


Hi Marilyn,

If you would forward this message to the Transfers Task Force mailing
list, that would be ideal, in order that it be part of the official
record.

I brought this up before, and it counters the tortured logic proponents
of WLS (and new registry services in general) have put forth lately.

Registrars have an agreement with ICANN, a copy of which is at:

http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm

Section 4.2 specifies "New and Revised Specifications and Policies",
and I draw the Task Force's attention to 4.2.4, that it is inclusive
of:

"4.2.4 principles for allocation of Registered Names (e.g.,
first-come/first-served, timely renewal, holding period after
expiration);"

WLS would most DEFINITELY reflect a modification of the allocation
mechanism for domain names from the Status Quo.

ICANN has certain obligations to registrars, via paragraph 2.3.2:
 
"2.3.2 not unreasonably restrain competition and, to the extent
feasible, promote and encourage robust competition"

Only the most extreme commentators have suggest WLS will actually
increase competition. The official position of the DNSO Registrars
community, and the position of many other market participants suggest
that WLS will have a devastating impact by creating a new monopoly
service for Verisign, to the detriment of consumers and registrars.

Should ICANN not fulfill their obligations, registrars will be
compelled to exercise their rights under section 4.3.2 of their
Agreement:

"4.3.2 In the event that Registrar disputes the presence of such a
consensus, it shall seek review of that issue from an Independent
Review Panel established under ICANN's bylaws. Such review must be
sought within fifteen working days of the publication of the Board's
action establishing the policy."

ICANN will not be able to demonstrate that WLS is a consensus policy,
or that it encourages competition. If the Transfers Task force suggests
to the Board that there is a consensus for WLS, it should provide
documentation, so that it can survive a challenge under section 4.3.2,
or section 5.6 which permits Registrars to challenge a policy in court
or via arbitration.

Some have suggested that the ICANN Board and the Transfers Task Force
do not have the expertise to tackle these issues, such as competition,
consensus polices, etc. As I stated in the teleconference, one does not
need to have be an expert in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity
(Gravity) or in medicine to know that a person jumping off the top of
the Empire State Building will die when he hits the ground. Common
sense will answer most of the questions that are before the board.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
--
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