Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & transfers

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

The biggest problem is in righting the ills of the transfer process, not in
nuking the registrar. Just neuter them instead...

See - If the registrar/registry operator has no clout in that "it is the one
and only entity that can publish that entry to some resolution service, or
lookup service (Search Engines etc)", then this point is moot. So what if
they, the registrar refuse to release the domain name. The customer
re-registers the domain in another root zone . The customers notifies any
already published search engine listings and what the hell - its business as
usual. And then if they want, the Customer sues the old registrar over
failure to release their IP.

You gotta realize - Most all of ICANN's process and mechanical problems are
easily solvable - And realize that most of the issues surround possession of
IP is based against that there is still only one root. Once there are more
than one root available these issues evaporate.

So fix what is broken and then the problems will go away.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Brown" <donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net>
To: <owner-ga@dnso.org>; "vinton g. cerf" <vinton.g.cerf@wcom.com>
Cc: "Joop Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>; <DannyYounger@cs.com>;
<vcerf@mci.net>; <ga@dnso.org>; <lynn@icann.org>; <touton@icann.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & transfers


> Wednesday, July 31, 2002, 4:01:15 AM, vinton g. cerf
<vinton.g.cerf@wcom.com> wrote:
> vgc> At 05:31 PM 7/31/2002 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >>At 09:37 p.m. 30/07/2002 -0400, vinton g. cerf wrote:
> [SNIP]
> >>>It looks so me as if we need something more refined than dis-
> >>>accreditation as the principal tool providing incentive to adhere
> >>>to contract terms.
> >>
> >>fines?
> >>
> >>And to whom will the cost of both the policing and the compliance be
passed on?
> >>--Joop
>
> vgc> that's one of the reasons there probably are no more refined
mechanisms
>
> You're saying that ICANN intentionally set themselves up as a paper
> tiger and intentionally circumscribed their contractual rights because
> of doubts over potential, future funding issues?  That makes absolutely
> no business sense or common sense.
>
> Furthermore, this has nothing to do with the costs of policing, (which
> I fail to see a requirement for, anyway) or the costs of contract
> compliance or even the costs of contract administration.
>
> In contrast, this a contractual performance issue, where the other
> party is INTENTIONALLY performing contrary to contractual requirements
> and in TOTAL DISREGARD to its obligations under the contract.
>
> Are you telling us that ICANN has no contractual rights to require
> specific performance under its contracts?
>
> ICANN's continued inaction to rectify this transfer problem is a
> disservice to all of the other Registrars who are compliant and it is
> particularly a disservice to the grass-roots domain Registrants who
> are being punished and deceived.
>
> 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
>
>

--
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