RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>]

Ross,

I am confused now. I agree 100% that a registry, its employees and/or its
consultants should never use information to provide a competitive advantage
to any registrar. That is in my humble opinion is a no brainer. Such
activity would constitute a breach of the ICANN Registry Agreement, and
potential be subject to other legal action.

Since the constituency was first formed every ICANN accredited registrar has
been allowed to participate in this constituency. In fact, the original
by-laws had a special carve out to allow NSI to participate even when it had
not official signed as an ICANN accredited registrar. One of the things that
I think makes this constituency unique is that everyone is able to join and
voice their opinion. Those that make intelligent thoughtful comments are
rewarded and provided respect, those that provide self serving statements
are quickly dismissed and ignored.

It is clear that over time certain registrars have taken positions that at
time benefit their company more so than the overall industry. In this cases
it is up to the members to vote. I believe your proposal assumes that
registrars cannot see through a registrar that may be acting in its own self
interest.

Mike




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 10:44 AM
> To: ross@tucows.com; 'Michael D. Palage'; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
>
>
>
> I should also clarify with this post in relation to the specific
> allegation you made regarding Afilias shareholders, specifically that
> "excluding [GNR from participating] in the registrar constituency would
> potentially require all Afilias shareholders to step down, Melbourne IT
> because of their interest in NeuStar, Register.com because of their
> interest in RegistryPro."
>
> If this were to occur, it would have to be as the result of a different
> proposal. The proposal that I set forward only limits the participation
> of individuals in the employ of a registry, not that of organizations
> with shareholdings in other organizations. Please do not extend the
> limits of the proposal to situations to which it clearly does not apply.
>
> -rwr
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 10:37 AM
> > To: 'Michael D. Palage'; 'registrars@dnso.org'
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
> >
> >
> > Michael,
> >
> > Do you intend to oppose the development of this proposition
> > or its adoption by the constituency? The fact is that
> > registries possess a wealth of information about my business,
> > they accumulate it in real time and can take advantage of it
> > on a daily basis. The methods you describe are not only
> > incomplete, but are limited to quarterly occurences. Please
> > also add to the list you've set forth whether or not the
> > registrar is current in its financial accounts with the
> > registry, what the ebb and flow of its registration busines
> > is, where its data-centers are located, what level of
> > commitment it is making to the TLD from a sales and marketing
> > perspective and on and on. Suppliers, by virtue of their
> > position in the supply chain, have access to a tremendous
> > amount of information. I am simply proposing that we do not
> > allow our constituency to become an instrument of abuse by
> > the registries.
> >
> >
> >
> >                        -rwr
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the
> > shore like an idiot."
> > - Steven Wright
> >
> > Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/blog
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org
> > > [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 10:26 AM
> > > To: ross@tucows.com; registrars@dnso.org
> > > Subject: RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
> > >
> > >
> > > Ross,
> > >
> > > I have worked as a consultant with Afilias since its
> > > inception when I help put together the original 18 registrar
> > > shareholders. I have also worked with .coop and .aero in
> > > identifying registrars to provide registrar services in their
> > > respective TLDs. I really have no idea of what proprietary
> > > information that registries have regarding the operation of
> > > your business.
> > >
> > > The only documents that a registry maintains on a registrar:
> > > are names of employees to contact (some/most of these names
> > > are publicly available on the ICANN web site); signed copies
> > > of confidentiality agreements and Registry Registrar
> > > Agreements (these documents are publicly available); how much
> > > money the registrar wishes to keep in his account (all one
> > > really needs to do is look at the registrars quarterly
> > > payments to ICANN or one of the industry reports and figure
> > > the number domains and multiple by the registry fee);
> > > insurance documents (minimum terms are publicly available);
> > > and thats about it.
> > >
> > > The purpose of the structural separation between VRSN
> > > registry/registrar was to prevent the registry from tipping
> > > its hat toward new technology developments and pricing
> > > advantages. This structural separation was critically
> > > important to provide registrars a level playing field to
> > > compete and one of the reasons why in the last contract
> > > negotiations we required 90 day notice prior to any technical
> > > changes as a result of the IDN role out.
> > >
> > > In the case of PersonalNames I agree that if GNR provides any
> > > type of competitive advantage to PersonalNames that would be
> > > a violation of their Registry contract that should result in
> > > termination of their contract. However, excluding their
> > > participation in the registrar constituency would potentially
> > > require all Afilias shareholders to step down, Melbourne IT
> > > because of their interest in NeuStar, Register.com because of
> > > their interest in RegistryPro.
> > >
> > > Just trying to address your concerns because I believe the
> > > PersonalNames/GNR is not much different from
> > > NetworkSolutions/VRSN. However, I do agree with a number of
> > > registrars that it is clearly in appropriate for the
> > > registrar to tout its relationship with the registry in the
> > > website advertising. That should come down immediately in my
> > > humble opinion.
> > >
> > > Just some thoughts,
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 10:02 AM
> > > > To: 'Michael D. Palage'; registrars@dnso.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Michael,
> > > >
> > > > The motion does not preclude participation in the
> > > constituency because
> > > > of participation in another constituency, it precludes
> > > participation
> > > > by an individual who may be in possession of, or come into
> > > possession
> > > > of, sensitive information regarding the operation of my business.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >                        -rwr
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the
> > > shore like an
> > > > idiot."
> > > > - Steven Wright
> > > >
> > > > Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/blog
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 9:59 AM
> > > > > To: Ross Wm. Rader; registrars@dnso.org
> > > > > Subject: RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ross,
> > > > >
> > > > > One other concern that I want to raise is that under Article X,
> > > > > Section 5, paragraph 3 of the ICANN by-laws, "No individual or
> > > > > entity shall be excluded from participation in a
> > > Constituency merely
> > > > > because of participation in another Constituency."
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org
> > > > > > [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > > > > > Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 9:03 AM
> > > > > > To: registrars@dnso.org
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to formally move that any representative
> > > of any ICANN
> > > > > > recognized gTLD registry in the possession of or with
> > access to
> > > > > > registry Proprietary Information
> > > > > >
> > > (http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-apph-06ma
> > > > > > r01.htm#A-
> > > > > > 3.1 in the case of GNR) or Registry Sensitive Information
> > > > > >
> > > (http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-apph-06ma
> > > > > > r01.htm#A-
> > > > > > 3.2 also in the case of GNR) not be permitted to
> > > > > participate in this
> > > > > > constituency at any level, in any capacity, for a period of
> > > > > one year
> > > > > > since the last receipt of such information and that our
> > > by-laws be
> > > > > > amended to reflect this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ross Wm. Rader
> > > > > > Tucows Inc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>
> > > > > > To: <registrars@dnso.org>
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 8:26 AM
> > > > > > Subject: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > As PersonalNames is now an ICANN accredited
> > registrar they are
> > > > > > eligible to
> > > > > > > subscribe to the registrar mailing list, and they
> > > have asked to
> > > > > > be added.
> > > > > > To
> > > > > > > date PersonalNames has not paid any membership dues so it is
> > > > > > not eligible
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > vote in any constituency matters.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yesterday there were several posts asking the Registrar
> > > > > > > Executive
> > > > > > Committee
> > > > > > > to schedule a call with PersonalNames. Although the
> > Executive
> > > > > > > Committee stands ready to assist the constituency in this
> > > > > matter, I
> > > > > > > believe that
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > dialogue between PersonalNames and the rest of the registrar
> > > > > > > community
> > > > > > might
> > > > > > > make any such call more productive.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The only PersonalNames representative that has asked to join
> > > > > > the registrar
> > > > > > > mailing list to date is Hakon Haugnes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Michael D. Palage
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>