Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & transfers

[Don Brown <donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net>]

Tuesday, July 30, 2002, 8:37:31 PM, vinton g. cerf <vinton.g.cerf@wcom.com> wrote:
[SNIP]

vgc> It looks so me as if we need something more refined than dis-
vgc> accreditation as the principal tool providing incentive to adhere
vgc> to contract terms. 

vgc> v

Why? Breach is Breach. There is nothing that says you Can't give
notice and allow a period of time for the Registrar to Cure it. In
fact, most contracts provide for a notice and cure period.

You seem to be looking for reasons not to even try to fix this
transfer problem.

Today, we have a transfer problem caused by only one Registrar.  Left
unchecked, what can we reasonably expect in the future?

ICANN has, at the very least, an obligation to all of the Other
Registrars who are following the Rules, to at least try to intervene
and stop this practice. Moreover, ICANN has an obligation to the
grass-roots Domain Registrants who are being punished and deceived.

It's ICANN's job.

Thanks,

----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
----

--
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