RE: [registrars] Code of Conduct

[edyson@edventure.com (Esther Dyson)]

re: "should be better left up to ICANN...."

Please remember that in some important sense "ICANN" is you guys.  Our role
is to be the place/process/institution where community members gather to set
policy.  So *you* should be helping to determine the policies which the
institution will then implement.  Yes, those policies will be and should be
vetted by the other constituents, but you might as well propose what you
think makes sense, since you are closest to the problems and know what would
be an effective deterrent, as opposed to either a wrist-slap or capital
punishment. 

esther


At 07:51 am 03/28/2000 -0500, Michael D. Palage wrote:
>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
>
>
>


Esther Dyson			Always make new mistakes!
chairman, EDventure Holdings
chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
edyson@edventure.com
1 (212) 924-8800    --  1 (212) 924-0240 fax
104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
New York, NY 10011 USA
http://www.edventure.com                    http://www.icann.org

PC Forum: 12 to 15 March 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona 
Book:  "Release 2.1: A design for living in the digital age" 
High-Tech Forum in Europe: October 2000 - Barcelona