RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com

[Elana Broitman <ebroitman@register.com>]

Title: RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com

Mike - you are regretably bringing in lots of examples that are besides the point!  When I was doing anything with RegistryPro, it was strictly to finalize their contract with ICANN.  I had no role in their work beyond that, and did not even participate in the registry constituency long before the contract was done.  In any case RegistryPro has not yet launched, so there would be no way for me to have access to any knowledge of the type that Ross's amendment is meant to protect against.

As for Registry Advantage, it was focused on ccTLD services. These are not the issue on the table. If it were to have done the RegistryPro back end, I would not have had information about specific registrars or would have worked only on that and not on registrar business.  As you will recall, at the time that I ran Registry Advantage, Register.com had Brendan Paine as registrar liaison.  As to whether I had any knowledge of any registrars' accounts over the past 12 months, I could not have even in my Registry Advantage role because RegistryPro was not operaitonal.

I would note my support for Ross' idea - perhaps with some amended language as proposed by Tim and/or others (I need to still review).  While any registry can always hire consultants without specific background in registrar information, it would be a business cost that few would engage in just to fool the constituency.  Therefore, I think Ross' concept represents a good government amendment in concept.

Mike/Rick - I would like to know how and when the amendment would be put to a vote.

Regards

Elana

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 12:19 PM
To: ross@tucows.com; registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com

Ross,

As someone that has busted his ass over the last four years to support the
interest of registrars, I agree that it is important to maintain a
separation between one registry from sharing information with another
registrar to the detriment of the registrar community. However, I oppose
excluding people that otherwise have a right to participate in this
constituency. When you start imposing restrictions it starts down a slippery
slope. What is next only registrars with over 500 names under management,
sorry Rick, Alice Registry can't participate.

I agree with Tim and others that structural separate between registry and
registrar is important. I find it difficult how Hakon would be able to serve
on the Board of Directors of GNR while being in control of the day to day
operations of PersonalNames. Hopefully Hakon would address some of our
concerns. There are times when good people do the right thing. When I served
on the SnapNames Advisory Board (2000-2002), I recused myself from the
delete discussion within the constituency. Hey ain't that a novel idea :-)

I value the intelligence of the members of this constituency and believe
that the paranoia of excluding people sets a bad precedent. Moreover, the
vague language of access to proprietary information could potentially
exclude me from continued participation within the constituency. As I stated
previously I believe that may track record speaks for itself with regard to
zealously advocating the position of registrars within the constituency.

As many of you may be aware, Elana was working with Registry Advantage for
some time. Under your one year capture provision, Elana herself may be
excluded from participation in the registrar constituency. Although I do not
always agree with her I believe the two of us make a valuable contribution
to the constituency. This is what constructive intelligent conversation
brings to the constituency, not self imposed restrictions of who can speak.

It is my strong belief that the Registrar Constituency has and will continue
to advocate the interest of registrars, and it should do so with the same
open door policy that has been in place since the formation of the
constituency where by all registrars and their representatives are allowed
to participate.

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 11:43 AM
> To: 'Michael D. Palage'; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: 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
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>