Re: [ga] Revising the RAA?

[eric@hi-tek.com]

Dear Danny,

Thank you for your continuing efforts and I apologize for lack of
communication.  Spending so much time in my developing nations causes a loss of
focus on these larger issues.

An open and transparent organization of registrars and registries is a good
idea.  Proposals and modifications of contracts could be discussed honestly with
our full knowledge of interested parties positions.

I deal with BTA and WTO issues daily and find that the obvious inclusion of self
interest in arguments to be refreshing.  ICANN does not seem to know who they
represent, or they are dishonest in what they believe.

Mr. Gomes is a great example of laying out his cards, he does not hide his hand
and pretend to be other than what he is.  Transfers is an international issue in
that about 90% of ccTLDs do not allow it, yet they are beginning to see value in
allowing it and the allowance in proliferation of registrars.  How can open and
transparent proper procedures work to the benefit of all concerned?  I would
hope that this becomes the issue,  rather than spiteful criticism.

Sincerely,
Eric

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> Chuck,
>
> In a recent letter to the GA list, Ross Rader directed our attention to a
> provision in the registry agreement which allows the Registry Operator to
> revise the terms of the Registry-Registrar Agreement (provided that any such
> revisions must be approved in advance by ICANN).
>
> As the issue of transfers of registrar sponsorship of registrations has now
> been under discussion for well over a year without adequate resolution, and
> whereas the advice tendered by our General Counsel in his 27 August 2001
> letter to Ms. Christine Russo still has not been codified into any agreement
> that is binding on all parties, can you comment on whether VeriSign Global
> Registry Services might be willing to offer its leadership in spearheading a
> collaborative effort to revise the Registry-Registrar Agreement to better
> facilitate a resolution of this transfers issue?
>
> I am thinking of the possibility of a registry-registrar team working in
> conjunction with ICANN staff to meaningfully attack the problem.  As this is
> primarily a contract issue, I don't view this proposed activity as being in
> conflict with the policy development efforts of the current Names Council
> transfers task force.
>
> Best regards,
> Danny Younger
>
> --
> 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

--
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