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

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

Folks,

As Danny pointed out on the GA list
[http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc11/msg00154.html] I was asleep at the
switch with this last draft :(

To make up for it, he makes some great comments concerning where this policy
might live (from a contractual perspective) - I'd recommend that you read
his post in its entirety at the above link.

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: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
To: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 8:15 PM
Subject: [ga] 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".
>
> 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
>