[ga] Re: rc-irdx-090302-v1r2d7.doc

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> Ross, the draft language still uses the phrase "the ICANN DNSO Registrars
> Constituency proposes that member Registrars voluntarily adopt the
following
> proposal".

Thanks for picking that out - its left over from an earlier draft and has no
place in this one. If you see sloppiness in other areas, let me know.

> I would like to see a recommendation emerge to relocate the policy
language
> into the RAA where it properly belongs.

Personally speaking, so would I. This seems to be an emerging (lower case
"c") consensus - I wouldn't be surprised if this is where we end up.

Thanks for the feedback.


                     -rwr




Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
thought which they seldom use."
 - Soren Kierkegaard



----- Original Message -----
From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
To: <ross@tucows.com>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: rc-irdx-090302-v1r2d7.doc


> Ross, the draft language still uses the phrase "the ICANN DNSO Registrars
> Constituency proposes that member Registrars voluntarily adopt the
following
> proposal".
>
> Doesn't all of your work to resolve the issue of transfers go into the
toilet
> if a certain large registrar decides not to voluntarily adopt the
proposal?
>
> As a matter of policy, I don't want to leave compliance to the arbitrary
> discretion of the registrar.  What is called for is a binding solution, a
> "consensus policy" that is obligatory upon all registrars and which is
> enforceable by ICANN.  This would mean placing the policy language into
the
> Registrar Accreditation Agreement to which ICANN is a signatory instead of
> allowing it to remain as an exhibit within the registry-registrar
agreements
> to which ICANN is not a signatory.
>
> As ICANN has recently committed itself to enforcement of the RAA, (see
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-03sep02.htm ) the
financial
> burden of enforcement would then not fall upon the shoulders of either the
> registrars or registries, but rather upon ICANN itself -- which is a
win-win
> for both of your constituencies.
>
> I would like to see a recommendation emerge to relocate the policy
language
> into the RAA where it properly belongs.
>
>

--
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