RE: [registrars] Code of Conduct

["Michael D. Palage" <mpalage@infonetworks.com>]

I re-read Jeff's initial proposal and here are my comments. I agree with the
pre-amble and setting up of the different type of infractions, however, I
believe accessing $ amount or penalties should be better left up to ICANN.
In addition these are the following issues that need to be addressed in the
Code of Conduct based upon the collective feedback that I have received from
registrars:

(1) Whois - availability and possible standardization of data
(2) Escrow data - reliable third agents, potential standardization, process,
etc.
(3) Warehousing of domain names for the primary purpose of resale, i.e. not
credit card charge back issues
(4) Hijacking of Domain Names - availability checks by one party and
consequent name registrations by another party for on-selling to the first
party
(5) Correcting Registrar processing errors. What happens when a domain name
is accidentally released and then registered by a third party. Under NSI's
registration agreement there are no vested rights in the domain name for 30
days. How can we establish a process to remedy these problems and indemnify
the parties.
(6) Credit policies
(7) Transfer policies

Perhaps the drafting of the document could work in the following manner.
Each volunteer/drafter could take one of the above issues and then flush-out
that particular point. After each of the criteria has been drafted all of
them could be reassembled with the preamble for a document that could then
be collectively critiqued.

I agree with Richard that having a teleconference is the next logical step
among those parties that have expressed an interest. I also agree with Erica
that most of these aforementioned criteria are technical in nature and are
critical toward the registrar community being viewed as ethical and
responsible. However, the reason that the legal side is so important is that
if you want this code of conduct to have any teeth, there is going to be the
need for adequate enforcement mechanisms. You can understand that a company
may take it a little personal if you try to have them de-accredited. This is
where the lawyers enter the picture and things get nasty.

I would like to thank Richard, Erica, Jeff and the others for their help in
this matter to date and their continued leadership in this area.

Does anyone have any negative feedback on the revised WG-B proposal? The
fact that the other constituencies have not shot it full of holes should be
taken as a good sign. If there are no further changes to that document we
will need to start getting signatures on that document to solidify our
support for it.

As discussed in Cairo, I have been working on a revised budget for the
Registrar Constituency. This is based in part upon Ken Stubbs revised Names
Counsel budget and our portion of these fees. Thank you for those registrars
that have paid the Names Counsel portion of the Registrar's dues to date. I
will be posting an updated list of the received fees later this week after I
resolve some wire problems encountered by some registrars.

Mike




-----Original Message-----
From:	owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf
Of Richard Lindsay
Sent:	Tuesday, March 28, 2000 6:41 AM
To:	Registrars@Dnso.Org
Subject:	Re: [registrars] Code of Conduct

Greetings everyone,

Did I hear my name called? :-)

In Cairo we had discussed setting up a "Best Practices" task
force, one of the issues to settle being the Code of Conduct.
I had volunteered to help organize this overall task force, but
of course welcome support in driving this particular aspect, the
Code of Conduct, forward.  Being in Tokyo makes communications
sometimes difficult, so having someone in North America to help
coordinate is a big benefit.

I did send out an email to the mailing list asking if anyone wanted
to get involved.  This was following a draft by Jeff (mentioned
below) which was sent to a subset of Registrars.  I don't believe
this has been submitted to the list yet, so if Jeff doesn't mind
I will forward that draft.

To date, I believe the following Registrars and members have
volunteered to participate:

Bob Connelly
Lauren Gaviser
Ross Wm. Rader
Alexander (I apologize, my font garbled your last name, is it Bauer?)
Erica Roberts
Jeff Shrewsbury (interest by drafting a first version :-))
Josh Elliott (by being cc'd on Jeff's mail)

I think this is a good group to start with.  If anyone wants to join,
or if I missed someone please let us know.  I think we could now
move on in the process as we to break down what we have to do,
and identify our goals and milestones.  The next steps may be
to  determine exactly what we are to accomplish, and perhaps
set some guidelines, and maybe set up a conference call
sometime in the near future to discuss a course of action.

Thoughts?

Regards,
Richard

"Michael D. Palage" wrote:

> I would welcome Richard as well as anyone elses help in advancing this
Code
> of Conduct. I have already posted to the list an agenda of those items
which
> should be included based on the feedback of various registrars. Several
> registrars have already volunteered the support of their legal staff which
> should make this document bullet-proof. The reason for this sense of
urgency
> is that the TM people are beginning to raise some noise in DC that the
> registrars are having trouble with 3 top-level domains why should we give
> them anymore. Therefore, we must get our house in order over the next
> several months and show up in Japan with a Code of Conduct IN PLACE.  The
> only draft to date has been the one posted by Jeff Shrewsbury. Therefore,
we
> need to look at this first proposal and see whether we need to modify it
or
> start from scratch.
>
> Mike

--
_/_/_/interQ Incorporated
_/_/_/System Division
_/_/_/Director and General Manager
_/_/_/Richard A. S. Lindsay
_/_/_/
_/_/_/Shibuya Infoss Tower 10F,
_/_/_/20-1 Sakuragaoka-cho, Shibuya-ku Tokyo, (150-0031) Japan
_/_/_/TELEPHONE:  81-3-5456-2687
_/_/_/FACSIMILE:  81-3-5456-2556