Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & transfers

[Don Brown <donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net>]

Wednesday, July 31, 2002, 11:35:46 AM, vinton g. cerf <vinton.g.cerf@wcom.com> wrote:
vgc> don, the only remedy if cure fails is disaccreditation - I was
vgc> speculating that something in addition to that nuclear tool might
vgc> be useful.

vgc> vint

The other party has the obligation to perform. They are
"intentionally" not performing and they are "intentionally" ignoring
their obligations.

You have no duty to be empathetic and there is certainly no reason for
empathy under these circumstances. Besides, they knew full well to
what they were obligating themselves, as they know full well that they
are "intentionally" not discharging certain of those obligations.

If disaccreditation is the only remedy available, then that makes the
decision process clear: (1) Notify them of the remedy available and
ask them to cure by a date certain; or, (2) Do nothing.

If the result is, in fact, disaccreditation, (which I doubt), then
that will have been "their" choice.

Nothing says that the parties can't negotiate during this process,
either.  You don't need any other tools.

ICANN's obligation or empathy for a single Registrar is significantly
over-shadowed by it's much larger obligation to the rest of the
Internet community. Therefore, doing nothing is the worst choice
available to ICANN.

This started as a transfer problem, due to non-performance, but it is
clearly evolving into an ICANN accountability issue.

I think it is past due for ICANN to do something positive and
proactive to resolve this non-performance issue, rather than
continuing to proffer excuses and otherwise do nothing. It is ICANN's
job and its responsibility.

Thanks,

vgc> At 10:48 AM 7/31/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>>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
>>----

vgc> Vint Cerf
vgc> SVP Architecture & Technology
vgc> WorldCom
vgc> 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
vgc> Ashburn, VA 20147
vgc> 703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
vgc> 703 886 0047 fax




----
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