Re: [registrars] Draft Letter
At 04:32 AM 7/24/01 -0400, Michael D. Palage wrote: Attached please find the proposed letter to Stuart drafted in accordance Dear Michael: Well done. Just some nit picking;-} We ask ICANN to post the Constituency letter that explains the broad views of the Constituency. Michael: Post where? You say at the end, but another word or two here would help. Page 3, para 3: The emails sent by the registrars who are changing the procedures, are generally confusing to the domain name holder (and in some cases in the wrong language), Can you make it a bit stronger. ... a language not understood by the name holder. The actions of the two registrars are causing serious customer service problems for the gaining registrars, and leading to dissatisfaction and confusion on the part of the domain name holders. Mike: Please consider adding something like this: In many cases (most cases?), the gaining registrar has already collected transfer fees from the domain name holder, further exacerbating his or her dissatisfaction. Mike, from this point on page 3 through the fourth paragraph of page 4 (down to "Registrar's Efforts to Date" is a verbatim repeat of what you have on page 2. I suggest wording such as the following: In fact, the approved and agreed procedures are enumerated in the four points and following on page 4. Registrar’s Efforts to Date During this meeting by a vote of 23 to 2, Mike: In the meeting that I attended, one startup (was he from Australia) surprisingly made it 3, voting with Register.com and Verisign. During these negotiations a straw poll was conducted among the Constituency Mike, last night I did not realize that you were speaking of the Email straw poll. I suggest you say "... an on line, Email straw poll was conducted..." VeriSign instead submitted its letter directly to ICANN. Mike: Could you say, "its letter directly to you in your capacity as CEO of ICANN" ? You might also say, "substantially raising the profile of the of the problem to an international audience, most of whom are unable to determine what points are significant. First, during both Constituency meetings in Stockholm, Dan Halloran, ICANN Registrar Liaison, stated that he was not aware of any complaints that ICANN had received about domain name slamming. Mike: Could you make it a bit stronger. "... he had not received *any* complaints about slamming..." ? Second, because of VeriSign’s significant reliance upon its independent and non public survey, the Constituency asked that the survey be made public so that its methodology could be examined to determine the reliability of this survey. We are not aware that this survey has been publicly disclosed, to date. Mike: Suggest adding: For credibility, any such survey should be conducted by a disinterested third party with broad input from potentially affected users of the Internet on the questions to be asked and other metrology. Mike, top para of page 6, third line reads, "...rules to study and report on the report on ..." I think there needs to be some editing of this line. Conclusion Further frustrating to the Constituency is that this argument ignores the very fact that this radical departure from adopted policy and procedure has created the very consumer confusion that they claim to be protecting against. Mike: Suggest emphasis on very, perhaps in italics. The Constituency respectfully submits that this letter be posted on the ICANN site in response to Mr. Cochetti’s July 16th letter. Furthermore, the Constituency eagerly await [sic: Constituency is singular, the verb should be "awaits"] guidance from ICANN on how to proceed in implementing its consensus based solution, and if necessary standing [sic: "stand"] willing to participate with the other DNSO constituencies in resolving this problem. Best regards, Thank you, Mike, for letting us look at your excellent draft. Take my thoughts or not as you feel best fits our needs. Personal regards, BobC
|