[ga] Re: Two Questions for the Deletes Task Force

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

John -

Thank you very much for your response. This was just an area I hadn't been
following closely, so I was seeking some clarification.

Of course, the broader issue of Agreements, their definition and
implementation, is one which merits further attention.

For example, the ICANN/Registry Agreements for the New TLDs were seriously
flawed, as were the Registry/Registrar agreements. The resulting mayhem, in
the .info launch in particular, could have been avoided if the Agreements
had been more carefully and precisely drafted, and also fully implemented.

My experience of ICANN during those events was of an organisation that
wanted to promote "laissez-faire" and a market that just operated by itself
without intervention. Even where ICANN was made aware - at the highest
level - of abuse of the very processes it had set in place, it chose not to
intervene... to the disadvantage of hapless consumers in the middle of it
all.

I take the view that ICANN Agreements need "teeth" in the form of sanctions
against Registries, Registrars or other parties who flout the original
terms.

In the context of Registries and Registrars, the punitive action could
include removal of accreditation, removal from the "loop", and in the case
of Registries, removal of their right to do business. Surely that could all
be written into contract in advance, and made a condition of the contract to
operate a registry?

One of the roles of ICANN should be to pre-empt problems, but it will not
achieve this if people feel they can just ignore elements of agreements, and
do their own thing.

I also find ICANN's failure to engage in detailed dialogue extremely
disappointing. There is, in my view, a culture of evasion : awkward
questions go unanswered. Genuine concerns get ignored. I am an active
participant in the ICANN community, but I have now been waiting 355 days for
a response (or even acknowledgement) to a much-publicised letter of
concerns, sent to Dan Halloran. The letter has been posted to him several
times, re-posted on the GA list, and at ICANNWatch, and on the ICANN public
forums. The issues were specific to ICANN's relationship with registrars,
and made never-denied claims of fraud and abuse of process. The concerns
were directly relevant to Dan Halloran in his ICANN-registrar liaison role.
He has consciously ignored the letter and thereby evaded the awkward
questions and issues raised.

That is indicative of a regime and culture that purports to promote openness
and accountability, but which in practice needs a mandatory policy of
responsiveness, and an external ombudman to monitor these and other aspects
of ICANN's operations. An internal ombudsman is insufficient.

ICANN administers a world resource. Its hapless Agreements and perceived
complicity with signatories to those Agreements results in a loss of
confidence - indeed, in many circles, ICANN is discredited.

Kind regards, and thank you once again for your remarks,

Richard Henderson
----- Original Message -----
From: John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. <john@johnberryhill.com>
To: Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
Cc: <nc-deletes@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: Two Questions for the Deletes Task Force


>
> Dear Mr. Henderson,
>
> The purpose of ICANN task forces is to make suggestions for incorporation
> into the relevant portions of, for example, the registrar accreditation
> agreement dealing with consensus policies for deletion.  It is up to ICANN
to
> adopt such suggestions.  The operative contracts governing registrar
behavior
> are between the registrars and ICANN (for accreditation), and between the
> registrars and Verisign (for access to the shared registration system for
> .com domain names).  You are not a party to these contracts, and thus you
> cannot cause any part of them to actually be enforced.
>
> If you believe a registrar is not complying with its obligations, then you
> may encourage ICANN to enforce the relevant obligation.  However,
enforcement
> decisions are within the sole discretion of ICANN, based on the consensus
of
> its constituents - i.e. the registrars, the registries, the business
> constituency, governments, intellectual property attorneys, etc.
Individual
> domain name registrants per se, or prospective domain name registrants,
are
> not part of the policy making or enforcement apparatus of ICANN.
>
> For further comments along these lines, I refer you to:
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-deletes/Arc00/msg00141.html
> Failing to define action that will occur in the event of breach
> results in contract terms that can be ignored, to the extent that the
> only approach to the contract is an all-or-nothing proposition.
> Expecting that merely writing terms into a contract means that the
> terms will be followed is just wishful thinking.  For that matter, one
> need not incorporate them into the contract at all.
>
> John
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
> To: <john@johnberryhill.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 6:18 AM
> Subject: Two Questions for the Deletes Task Force
>
>
> HelpDear John -
>
> I am writing to you as a member of the Deletes Task Force, to ask you if
you
> could give me an update on the state of play with regard to Deletes
policy,
> and implementation dates.
>
> Specifically, when does WLS come into play? Is there a date or rough date
set
> for its introduction?
>
> And secondly, I've been following the process of .com names releases after
> expiry in the past months, and there seems no consistency. Some names
appear
> to go on hold for the minimum period provided, and then become available
to
> the public (to date, many of those names put "on hold" between January and
> about 3rd March have so far become available).
>
> On the other hand, a large number (thousands) of Net Sol names, including
> names put on hold in January and the whole of February, remain "on hold"
and
> are still not available.
>
> I thought the intention was for one, consistent policy for the industry.
Why
> are the NetSol names being held back?
>
> I'd be grateful for your insights, both on WLS dates, and on the second
> issue, and thank you for your assistance.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Richard Henderson
> (IcannatLarge.org)
>
>

--
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