<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] Legal Briefing
Danny:
With regard to the Whois Task Force recommendations I have had several
registrars raise significant reservations to me, and the constituency will
be addressing this matter during the upcoming Shanghai meeting. Listed below
is the Executive Summary of my "personal" comments which I hope to submit to
the Whois Task Force prior to leaving for Shanghai:
The Names Council Whois Task Force should be commended for the unenviable
task of attempting to tackle the global and complex issues surrounding the
access and accuracy of Whois data. As the former chair of ICANN’s Working
Group B, I know first hand, the frustration in attempting to tackle a
complex problem in which no simple solution exists, and the second guessing
that one must endure by nay Sayers. However, I would encourage the Task
Force to avoid a growing trend within the DNSO to manufacture consensus on
complex issues when in fact none exists. For the reasons set forth below,
most of the Whois Task Force’s interim recommendations should be rejected
because they are:
· inconsistent with ICANN’s existing contractual obligations;
· would violate ICANN’s mission and core values as set forth in both the
current and proposed by-laws;
· conflict with existing technical and market realities; and
· would threaten the stability of the Internet and cause undue harm and
damages to businesses and users.
Regarding the Transfer Task Force, the registrars voted in Stockholm 22 to 3
to advance an auto-ack policy. The three no votes where VeriSign,
Register.com and Namescout. Based upon the current discussion within the
Registrar Constituency the following registrars have also expressed concerns
about certain provisions within the current Transfer's Task Force document:
BulkRegister, Joker.com, 007 Names and GoDaddy.
It is my personal belief that the majority of the Constituency is still
supportive of Task Force Report. However, there are emerging a growing
number of dissenting voices as the final recommendations become clearer (see
email thread below). The Constituency will be taking a vote on the final
document when it is prepared, and the result of this vote will be made
public.
I hope this was helpful.
Best regards,
Mike
(EMAIL THREAD FROM REGISTRAR MAILING LIST OF TRANSFER TASK FORCE)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:53 PM
To: tim@godaddy.com; Elana Broitman; 'Michael D. Palage';
registrars@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [registrars] RE: ICANN Shanghai Meeting Topic Transfers of
gTLD Domain Names 28-31 October 200
> Maybe I've been reading a different mail list. I recall BulkRegister,
> joker.com, 007names, Namescout.com, and of course Go Daddy all voicing
what
> sounded like disagreement and/or concerns with various parts of the
> proposal. Perhaps I misunderstood their comments, but it looks like more
> than two registrars to me.
The concerns, comments and suggestions that Siegfried, yourself, Paul and
Rob have brought forward (amongst others) is called constructive criticism -
it has made the constituency position stronger.
This stands in stark contrast to the obstinate opposition of those
registrars who have refused to cooperate towards a compromise and will most
certainly reserve their "participation" for the public comment period. This
is disappointing, but expected.
But it doesn't make it contentious, and it certainly doesn't mean that the
constituency is being surprised by the ExComm as it relates to the Shanghai
agenda.
-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: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>; "Elana Broitman"
<ebroitman@register.com>; "'Michael D. Palage'" <michael@palage.com>;
<registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 6:30 PM
Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: ICANN Shanghai Meeting Topic Transfers of gTLD
Domain Names 28-31 October 200
> Ross,
>
> Maybe I've been reading a different mail list. I recall BulkRegister,
> joker.com, 007names, Namescout.com, and of course Go Daddy all voicing
what
> sounded like disagreement and/or concerns with various parts of the
> proposal. Perhaps I misunderstood their comments, but it looks like more
> than two registrars to me.
>
> Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:38 PM
> To: Elana Broitman; 'Michael D. Palage'; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [registrars] RE: ICANN Shanghai Meeting Topic Transfers of
> gTLD Domain Names 28-31 October 200
>
>
> >...it's always been a contentious issue, and continues to
> > have a number of diff. proposals and different registrar positions, it
is
> > worth a place on the agenda the day before you make a public
presentation.
>
>
> I would strongly beg to differ with your characterization. The
constituency
> position has been loudly opposed by two specific registrars since day one.
> Oddly, it is anything but a contentious issue. It has also been on the
> agenda of every single registrar meeting going back almost two years and
the
> constituency position hasn't changed much. While it does deserve a spot on
> the agenda for Shanghai, I doubt that we will be discussing anything new -
> we are dealing with well-trod ground.
>
> If anyone does want to get up to speed on what the TF has been up to for
the
> last 18 months, please feel free to give me a ring at the office.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> -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: "Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@register.com>
> To: "'Michael D. Palage'" <michael@palage.com>; <registrars@dnso.org>
> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:20 PM
> Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: ICANN Shanghai Meeting Topic Transfers of
gTLD
> Domain Names 28-31 October 200
>
>
> > Great to hear - since it's always been a contentious issue, and
continues
> to
> > have a number of diff. proposals and different registrar positions, it
is
> > worth a place on the agenda the day before you make a public
presentation.
> >
> > Thanks, Elana
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
> > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:14 PM
> > To: Elana Broitman; registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: [registrars] RE: ICANN Shanghai Meeting Topic Transfers of gTLD
> > Domain Names 28-31 October 200
> >
> >
> > It has been a topic of conversation for over 18 months and will continue
> to
> > be so until it is resolved.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Elana Broitman [mailto:ebroitman@register.com]
> > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:52 PM
> > To: 'Michael D. Palage'; registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: ICANN Shanghai Meeting Topic Transfers of gTLD Domain Names
> > 28-31 October 200
> >
> >
> > Given that the constituency will be asked for a view on Tuesday at the
> ICANN
> > meeting, I hope that this issue is placed on the constituency's Monday
> > agenda. Thanks, Elana
> > <<ICANN Shanghai Meeting Topic Transfers of gTLD Domain Names 28-31
> > October 2002.htm>>
>
>
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:53 PM
To: tim@godaddy.com; Elana Broitman; 'Michael D. Palage';
registrars@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [registrars] RE: ICANN Shanghai Meeting Topic Transfers of
gTLD Domain Names 28-31 October 200
> Maybe I've been reading a different mail list. I recall BulkRegister,
> joker.com, 007names, Namescout.com, and of course Go Daddy all voicing
what
> sounded like disagreement and/or concerns with various parts of the
> proposal. Perhaps I misunderstood their comments, but it looks like more
> than two registrars to me.
The concerns, comments and suggestions that Siegfried, yourself, Paul and
Rob have brought forward (amongst others) is called constructive criticism -
it has made the constituency position stronger.
This stands in stark contrast to the obstinate opposition of those
registrars who have refused to cooperate towards a compromise and will most
certainly reserve their "participation" for the public comment period. This
is disappointing, but expected.
But it doesn't make it contentious, and it certainly doesn't mean that the
constituency is being surprised by the ExComm as it relates to the Shanghai
agenda.
-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: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>; "Elana Broitman"
<ebroitman@register.com>; "'Michael D. Palage'" <michael@palage.com>;
<registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 6:30 PM
Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: ICANN Shanghai Meeting Topic Transfers of gTLD
Domain Names 28-31 October 200
> Ross,
>
> Maybe I've been reading a different mail list. I recall BulkRegister,
> joker.com, 007names, Namescout.com, and of course Go Daddy all voicing
what
> sounded like disagreement and/or concerns with various parts of the
> proposal. Perhaps I misunderstood their comments, but it looks like more
> than two registrars to me.
>
> Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:38 PM
> To: Elana Broitman; 'Michael D. Palage'; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [registrars] RE: ICANN Shanghai Meeting Topic Transfers of
> gTLD Domain Names 28-31 October 200
>
>
> >...it's always been a contentious issue, and continues to
> > have a number of diff. proposals and different registrar positions, it
is
> > worth a place on the agenda the day before you make a public
presentation.
>
>
> I would strongly beg to differ with your characterization. The
constituency
> position has been loudly opposed by two specific registrars since day one.
> Oddly, it is anything but a contentious issue. It has also been on the
> agenda of every single registrar meeting going back almost two years and
the
> constituency position hasn't changed much. While it does deserve a spot on
> the agenda for Shanghai, I doubt that we will be discussing anything new -
> we are dealing with well-trod ground.
>
> If anyone does want to get up to speed on what the TF has been up to for
the
> last 18 months, please feel free to give me a ring at the office.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> -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: "Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@register.com>
> To: "'Michael D. Palage'" <michael@palage.com>; <registrars@dnso.org>
> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:20 PM
> Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: ICANN Shanghai Meeting Topic Transfers of
gTLD
> Domain Names 28-31 October 200
>
>
> > Great to hear - since it's always been a contentious issue, and
continues
> to
> > have a number of diff. proposals and different registrar positions, it
is
> > worth a place on the agenda the day before you make a public
presentation.
> >
> > Thanks, Elana
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
> > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:14 PM
> > To: Elana Broitman; registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: [registrars] RE: ICANN Shanghai Meeting Topic Transfers of gTLD
> > Domain Names 28-31 October 200
> >
> >
> > It has been a topic of conversation for over 18 months and will continue
> to
> > be so until it is resolved.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Elana Broitman [mailto:ebroitman@register.com]
> > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:52 PM
> > To: 'Michael D. Palage'; registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: ICANN Shanghai Meeting Topic Transfers of gTLD Domain Names
> > 28-31 October 200
> >
> >
> > Given that the constituency will be asked for a view on Tuesday at the
> ICANN
> > meeting, I hope that this issue is placed on the constituency's Monday
> > agenda. Thanks, Elana
> > <<ICANN Shanghai Meeting Topic Transfers of gTLD Domain Names 28-31
> > October 2002.htm>>
>
>
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
DannyYounger@cs.com
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 4:39 AM
To: touton@icann.org
Cc: ga@dnso.org
Subject: [ga] Legal Briefing
Dear Louis,
In your "Briefing Concerning Implementation of Policies by Registrars and
Registry Operators" you wrote:
"Several of the registrars and registry operators have expressed alarm
concerning the effect that these proposed requirements would have on their
operations, and have indicated that they presently oppose some of the
requirements being considered."
also,
"Many of the policy proposals in the interim reports of the Transfers and
Whois Task Forces contemplate implementation by registrars and registry
operators, yet many of those entities have expressed strong opposition to
them. If these proposals are intended to be adopted as ICANN policies that
will be binding on registrars or registry operators, it is necessary, for
the
reasons outlined here, to proceed in a manner that addresses the reasoned
objections and concerns of these entities."
Having followed both constituency list and Task Force discussions on
transfers and WHOIS over the course of the last year, I have not noted the
"strong opposition" on these lists to proposed policies that you have cited,
nor opposition on the part of "many of those entities". Similarly, no
expressions of "alarm" have been raised within the formal policy-development
venues, and there have been no comments posted "on the record" through
constituency representatives directly to these venues nor through the open
conference call opportunities provided by the Task Forces that would
indicate
such strong present opposition and reasoned objections to some of the
requirements being considered.
To the same degree that registrars and registry operators seek protections
that ensure that the environment under which they operate is predictable, so
too do other stakeholders seek predictability in the policy development
process. So far the only thing that has been predictable is the fact that
certain entities, rather than fully participating in the policy development
process and making their sentiments known therein, seek to thwart the
process
by deliberately withholding their input (knowing that they can run to Staff
at the last minute to bitch and moan and cut a deal).
I take issue with Staff countenancing this type of behavior. We have an
obligation as a Corporation to protect against abuse of the policy
development process. We are entitled to predictability. Even the
Reconsideration Committee will dismiss requests "where the affected party
had
an opportunity, but was unwilling, to participate in the public comment
period relating to the contested action".
I would ask you to specifically identify the entities that have flagged such
concerns so that discussions may be held on the record and in full public
view with these parties.
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|