[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[registrars] misprint
NOSY is misprint. I meant NSI.
----------------------------------
Ivan Vachovsky,
President
ABACUS America Inc. d.b.a. A+Net
Ste 880, 4660 La Jolla Village Dr.
San Diego, CA, 92122
(858) 558-8522 x 103
www.aplus.net Internet Services
www.websolo.com Affordable web hosting
www.names4ever.com Accredited Domain Registrar
www.paybutton.com Billing for e-commerce
www.server4me.com Server co-location
www.fiberia.com Free e-mail and web services
www.rodopi.com Billing software for IP services
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ivan Vachovsky" <ivan@abac.com>
To: <mpalage@infonetworks.com>; "Esther Dyson" <edyson@edventure.com>
Cc: "Richard Lindsay" <richard@interq.ad.jp>; "Registrars@Dnso.Org"
<registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: [registrars] Code of Conduct
> Esther,
>
> Thank you for the meaningful posting.
>
> I personally do not see much sense in any guild (or constituency group).
>
> ICANN is the organization we should support. We do not have contradicting
> interests
> with ICANN. There is no sense of piling up organizations.
>
> BTW Yahoo refused today our banner advertisement with the motivation that
> only
> NOSY has exclusive rights to advertise domain names registration on Yahoo.
>
> It seems that we are moving from the administrative monopoly to the
monopoly
> of
> financial power, created during the administrative monopoly.
>
> Is this ethical? Is this legal? Who can help here better ICANN or the
> Ethical Conduct Code
> of the constituency group? I'm leaning towards ICANN.
>
> Thanks,
>
> ----------------------------------
> Ivan Vachovsky,
> President
> ABACUS America Inc. d.b.a. A+Net
> Ste 880, 4660 La Jolla Village Dr.
> San Diego, CA, 92122
> (858) 558-8522 x 103
> www.names4ever.com Accredited Domain Registrar
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Esther Dyson" <edyson@edventure.com>
> To: <mpalage@infonetworks.com>
> Cc: "Richard Lindsay" <richard@interq.ad.jp>; "Registrars@Dnso.Org"
> <registrars@dnso.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 3:45 PM
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Code of Conduct
>
>
> > 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
> >
>