<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
> 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.
Let me clarify for you then. You are indeed correct in your analysis of
a registries obligation as it relates to the confidential treatment of
data and the remedies that are available in the case of a breach.
What these terms do not deal with are those registries that use this
information for their own corporate benefit. I am proposing that we
limit the value of this information by limiting the range of
circumstances under which it can be abused by a registry or a registry
subsidiary.
Further, I would ask you to clarify something for me - what do we lose
by explicitly not supporting the registry agenda? Furthering the
interests of registrars and indeed, drawing clear lines around what a
registry is and what a registrar is are clearly layed out in the
founding documents of this constituency and should be furthered by the
ongoing activities of this constituency. I am unclear as to what we gain
through the inaction that you seem to be advocating.
-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 11:00 AM
> To: ross@tucows.com; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.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
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|