Re: [ga] Legal Briefing

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Don and all assembly members,

Don Brown wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> How can the Registrars be a monopoly, just because they all signed
> (almost) the same contract with ICANN? That simply doesn't compute or
> make any sense at all to me.

  As oen that is in the registrar business with ICANN, I can see
why you don't understand or don't wish to.  Hence of course
it doesn't "Compute" to you, Don.   The RRP says it all.

>
>
> There is no price fixing that I can see. In fact, as far as I can
> tell, a consumer can buy a domain name registration for the sum of
> about $8 to about $35 for one year, depending upon Registrar; maybe
> lower/higher, too.

  This is not the point at all.  The point is best put in a question
format for simplicity.  Can a potential registrant register a DN
from a registrar that is not an accredited registrar of ICANN
for .com, .net, .org, ect., ect?  No they cannot.  Hence
they are relegated to a monopolistic framework for registering
a DN in those name spaces.

>
>
> The Registrars are innovative and have introduced additional value.
> Let's also not forget who had a "wls" before that term became an
> acronym indigenous to Snap and VeriSign.  Let's also not forget how
> ICANN gave Snap and VeriSign that monopoly, as well.  That's a
> monopoly, Jeff - there is No Consumer Choice.
>
> No Jeff, many times you are on-point with criticism, but you really
> missed the mark miserably by calling the Registrars a monopoly.  You
> and I can be wrong sometimes, though.  We can agree on that, for sure.
>
> The real problem is that ICANN is corrupt.  Let's cut to the meat of
> the issue.  Everyone talks around it and complains around it.  I said
> it.
>
> You can play fair, but you shouldn't expect a chance of winning or
> even a chance at fairness or even reasonable equity, when the other
> party cheats and pulls all the strings. It's like going to Las Vegas -
> they pay for all those lights, somehow (that was a joke - with ICANN
> it is worse than that and I don't think that any of us are laughing
> about it, either).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Monday, October 21, 2002, 8:39:07 PM, Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> JW> Michael and all assembly members,
>
> JW>   Make sure you ware some insulated gloves when running around in
> JW> a field during a lightening storm swinging a golf club, will ya!  >;)
> JW> I also hope you get the point of this retort also Michael...  ???
>
> JW>   Your argument below is and interesting one, but substantially misses
> JW> the point of Eric's response.  ALL ICANN registrars are under
> JW> RRP contract agreement with certain provisions, therefore they
> JW> are collectively a monopolist set of registrars.  Hence I think
> JW> a good bit of Eric's indirect point is sophistry form...  As such
> JW> the registrant is yet again in a lock-in situation which in and of itself
> JW> is an aberration of the free market system that thwarts free enterprise
> JW> in the Domain Name industry/game that is less than advantageous
> JW> to the registrant.
>
> JW> Michael D. Palage wrote:
>
> >> Eric:
> >>
> >> I think this thread provides a classic example of why contracting parties
> >> tend to avoid the noise of ICANN Policy efforts. However, since I never shy
> >> away from running around in an open field during a lighting storm swinging a
> >> golf club, let me continue.
> >>
> >> I submit that the divergent viewpoints of registries and registrars are self
> >> evident that no consensus exists on some of these complex issues.
> >> Additionally, if in fact there was a monopoly as you allege, the registries
> >> and registrars would be in lock step regarding these proposals.
> >>
> >> I never said that people and businesses that register and use domain names
> >> are not important. They in fact have the ultimate responsibility of speaking
> >> with their wallet in choosing their registrar of record and what tld they
> >> register in.
> >>
> >> Mike
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: eric@hi-tek.com [mailto:eric@hi-tek.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 2:29 PM
> >> To: Michael D. Palage
> >> Cc: DannyYounger@cs.com; touton@icann.org; ga@dnso.org
> >> Subject: Re: [ga] Legal Briefing
> >>
> >> Damn fine show here,
> >> In our work we say that "Marketing is education, and education is Marketing"
> >> I feel educated and marketed by this fine explanation of Registrars
> >> workings.
> >>
> >> The use of the term advocate was most educational.  We here in the GA only
> >> have representatives.
> >> How come they get advocates?  I am glad to see that Louis has a direct line
> >> with registrars and no line what so ever with users.  Makes sense.
> >> Unlike these highly important registrars and registries we will continue to
> >> have direct communication with users. And we will reserve the time necessary
> >> to provide service through effective communication skills.
> >> It is quite funny that the people who actually pay the money to the company
> >> are not considered important in the running of the business.  Go Figure!
> >> Can you spell  M-O-N-O-P-O-L-I-E-S???
> >> e
> >>
> >> "Michael D. Palage" wrote:
> >>
> >> > Danny:
> >> >
> >> > Not to sound like an attorney, but there is no contractual requirement
> >> that registrars or registries participate in the DNSO, or its processes.
> >> Regardless of the level of participation by either registrars or registries,
> >> such action or inaction does not waive the contractual rights contained in
> >> their contracts. Although I will work on a more detailed response to your
> >> questions below during my flight to China, I wanted to give you some quick
> >> answers.
> >> >
> >> > Question 1: The Registrar Constituency hase had a sort of revolving door
> >> of representation in the Whois task force. Although Paul Kane was an initial
> >> registrar advocate we have had several representatives serving on this Task
> >> Force: Philip, Ken and Tim. Although some people may find this hard to
> >> believe, but registrars do have businesses to run and they are not always
> >> able to devote the necessary resources to play in the DNSO's policy sandbox
> >> that other people seem to have. I think Ross has been doing a good job of
> >> advocating the registrar position on the Transfer's Task Force. However, as
> >> I previously noted as the final recommendations become clearer there is a
> >> growing number of registrars expressing concern about certain
> >> recommendations. I do not believe that the registrars nor the registries are
> >> trying to force the Task Force back to square one. All I believe they are
> >> trying to do is ensure that their contractual safeguards are preserved.
> >> >
> >> > Question 2: The Executive Committee delegates the responsibilities of
> >> representing the registrars viewpoints to specific representatives. They
> >> periodically report to the constituency and the executive committee on their
> >> progress. When a final report is available it is put forth to the
> >> constituency for a vote. Unlike other constituencies that fail to delegate
> >> responsibilities to other members, I do not specifically know what has or
> >> has not been stated to the Task Forces. All I know is what has been
> >> communicated to me via email, in person meetings, teleconferences, etc. Not
> >> all communication within the registrar constituency occurs on the listserv.
> >> >
> >> > Question 3: I cannot say with certainty why registrar come to me. Maybe
> >> because I tend to listen and recommend a reasonable and prudent course of
> >> action based upon the facts and the binding contracts. Registrars and
> >> registries may chose to contact Louis because he is the general counsel of
> >> ICANN and registrars and registries have contracts with ICANN. Speaking for
> >> myself, I contacted Steve Metalitz and raised a number of concerns regarding
> >> some of the initial recommendations in an earlier Whois draft report. This
> >> was followed up with some discussions with my registry counterparts. Based
> >> upon this discussion I am writing a formal response to the Whois Task Force
> >> showing what I believe is serious fundamental flaws in the report, as well
> >> as potential recommendations for moving forward with a solution to the
> >> problem.
> >> >
> >> > I guess one of the biggest reasons why people choose not to actively
> >> participate in the DNSO processes is that there is so much noise on the task
> >> force and mailing lists, that they prefer to sit back and rely upon the
> >> contracts they entered into in good faith. The same contracts that allow
> >> them to employ people, pay rent and taxes, etc. I know this is definitely
> >> not the answer you were looking for but it is part of the reality we live
> >> in.
> >> >
> >> > Best regards,
> >> >
> >> > Mike
> >> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
> >> > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 10:27 AM
> >> > To: michael@palage.com; touton@icann.org
> >> > Cc: ga@dnso.org
> >> > Subject: Re: [ga] Legal Briefing
> >> >
> >> > Michael,
> >> >
> >> > You are doubtless aware that I hold no particular fondness for the Task
> >> Force
> >> > concept which serves to limit participation rather than encouraging
> >> > participation and substantive contributions.  We again now find ourselves
> >> at
> >> > a point where after initial recommendations have been made, those that
> >> > haven't had a chance to participate in the policy development process now
> >> > take issue with the recommendations studiously developed by their peers
> >> > (bringing us back to square one).
> >> >
> >> > While you have called for the rejection of the WHOIS Task Force interim
> >> > recommendations deeming them to be inconsistent with ICANN’s existing
> >> > contractual obligations, a violation of ICANN’s mission and core values,
> >> in
> >> > conflict with existing technical and market realities, and constituting a
> >> > treat to the stability of the Internet, I would note that the registrar
> >> > constituency does indeed have a representative assigned to the WHOIS Task
> >> > Force, Ken Stubbs, and that I am not aware of any such issues being raised
> >> by
> >> > Ken on the Task Force Discussion List.
> >> >
> >> > This raises the following questions:
> >> >
> >> > 1.  Why aren't members of the registrar constituency following the policy
> >> > development process within the TF, interacting with their
> >> > representative-of-record on the Task Force, and instructing him to post
> >> their
> >> > comments to the list for consideration by other stakeholders prior to the
> >> > publication of an Interim Report?
> >> > 2.  Why hasn't your representative raised such issues for discussion on
> >> the
> >> > TF list if they indeed are of the magnitude that you describe and are of
> >> such
> >> > great concern to the constituency?
> >> > 3.  Why do your members find it necessary to go straight to either
> >> yourself
> >> > or to ICANN staff with their complaints and concerns rather than going to
> >> > their TF representative so that issues might be addressed in mutual
> >> > consultation prior to arriving at what is now the Interim Report stage?
> >> >
> >> > What I am seeing is more of an attempt to derail a process than to
> >> cooperate
> >> > within the process itself.  Constantly going back to square one serves
> >> > nobody's interests.  If the process itself is flawed, then perhaps we need
> >> to
> >> > take another hard look at the process and consider appropriate changes
> >> before
> >> > we again head down this profitless road, but acting to do no more than
> >> trash
> >> > the work of others that have diligently cooperated for well over a year to
> >> > arrive at recommendations is not the best possible way forward.
> >> >
> >> > Best regards,
> >> > Danny
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > 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
>
> JW> Regards,
> JW> --
> JW> Jeffrey A. Williams
> JW> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
> JW> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> JW> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> JW> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> JW> Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
> JW> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
> JW> --
> JW> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> JW> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> JW> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> JW> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> ----
> 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
> ----

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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