[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] Community & Registrar Input on Transfers
Danny and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,
> In my view, your polemical argument that members of the At-Large are not
> considered to be "among Internet stakeholders represented in the ICANN
> process" is without merit. The ICANN Board will receive and appreciate
> substantive commentary from any individual or group that has made a concerted
> effort to solve a vexing problem.
I understand your contention here Danny. In fact I rather counted upon
this or something similar in response from you. However ICANN's
own documentation does not bare out your disagreement with
what I said, which by the way, was not an argument at all rather
it was a statement of fact backed up ICANN"s own documentation,
followed by a question I posed. Hence this as I take it as part of
your answer does not address the question at all that I posed.
> Currently, members of the At-Large are
> represented vis-a-vis their At-Large directors, and in the immediate future
> they will be represented by way of the ALAC membership.
This is true to a point or in part. Indeed, currently ICANN only has
two At-Large directors which will be done away with soon, as you know.
It also MAY be true also that the ALAC will become the defacto
At-Large for ICANN. Hence again, the situation of this organization
submitting comments or any proposals as an organization to ICANN
has little value or will generally be ignored as we are not part of
the present At-Large, which as you know was abolished by the
ICANN BOD, and will perhaps not be part of the ALAC either.
> To remind you of recent events, please note that SnapNames recently managed
> to successfully influence the ICANN Board with respect to their Wait Listing
> Service proposal.
Yes, SnapNames is a company that is a member of the DNSO GA. So of course
their comments or proposals would be given consideration. So your point here
is what as to my contention and question?
> SnapNames is neither a registrar, nor a registry -- they
> are not a member of the Business Constituency, the ISPs, the IPC, or the
> NCDNHC -- yet they prevailed nonetheless even while not having a status that
> you would recognize as commensurate with other "stakeholders" in the ICANN
But they are represented in the DNSO GA. So again your argument or
perhaps I should say premise, here is weak as to support your previous conclusion
as SnapNames again, is represented in the DNSO GA...
> They succeeded in part because they took the time to outline their
> proposal, pros and cons, in a series of documents (more than 150 pages) that
> were presented directly to the ICANN Board members for consideration.
Not entirely for this reason, no Danny. They were and still are given
consideration because they, 1.) Provide a DN service of sorts, they are
represented in the DNSO GA, and because they are also in a contract
situation with Versign.
Conversely, ICANNATLARGE.ORG is not represented officially
in the DNSO GA,though we do have members that are also
members of the DNSO GA. 2.) ICANNATLARGE.ORG does
not at this time provide any service of any kind, not to mention
DN service. >;) 3.) ICANNATLARGE.ORG is not in a contract
situation with Verisign. 4.) ICANNATLARGE.ORG is not even yet
incorporated, which, SnapNames is....
> You have also asked whether there are ways to address the problem other than
> by recourse to the consensus-policy provisions in the ICANN contracts. There
> are other viable options:
> 1. registrars can be influenced to ratify and adopt a voluntary code of
> conduct --
They could yes. But it is unlikely as you know, that they ever will.
Also as you know this has been discussed and debated at some length
before. It was never resolved...
> 3.7 Business Dealings, Including with Registered Name Holders.
> 3.7.1 In the event ICANN adopts a specification or policy, supported by a
> consensus of ICANN-Accredited registrars, establishing or approving a Code of
> Conduct for ICANN-Accredited registrars, Registrar shall abide by that Code.
> A Code of Conduct is binding, and representations made within that Code of
> Conduct are actionable under law. Such a Code may be excuted without the
> contractual ramifications otherwise associated with the other consensus
> policy provisions now present in the RAA.
> 2. registries may be influenced to unilaterally modify their
> registry-registrar agreements within which the language governing transfers
> is housed. This action may be accomplished without the contractual need for
> consensus to be documented either in the registrar constituency or in the
> DNSO proper (and requires only ICANN approval).
However we now do not know it this will or even does still apply,
though I believe that it does still apply, because the GNSO will
be or is proposed to be replacing the DNSO...
> 3. the GAC may be influenced to submit an Advisory to the ICANN Board -- the
> GAC is chartered to operate "as a forum for the discussion of government and
> other public policy interests and concerns", including providing advice to
> ICANN on:
> a). "effective competition at all appropriate levels of activity and
> conditions for fair competition, which will bring benefits to all categories
> of users including, greater choice, lower prices, and better services;"
> b). "fair information practices, including respect for personal privacy and
> issues of consumer concern;"
> In view of previous ICANN action that overturned the DNSO recommendations on
> geopolitical and geographic identifiers in favor of action requested by the
> GAC, this approach equally has merit.
Very much agreed here. However as you know the US rep to the
GAC is where such a proposal that you suggest should be sent
DIRECTLY to... Not ICANN for and from this fledgling organization...
> 4. Possible recourse to the Sanctions Program established in Appendix Y of
> the .com registry agreement for failure to observe the neutrality guidelines
> stipulated in Appendix I (Registry Code of Conduct) which requires that:
> "VGRS will not show any preference or provide any special consideration to
> any ICANN-accredited registrar with regard to Registry Services provided for
> the .com TLD." The VGRS failure to enforce the relevant provisions of
> Exhibit B might well constitute grounds for such a neutrality violation as
> such action clearly favors the VGRS subsidiary.
> 5. Undeniably, pursuing the enactment of consensus policy provisions is the
> preferred approach, and such may yet be accomplished. The current ICANN
> Bylaws state:
> "With respect to any policies that are being considered by the Board for
> adoption that substantially affect the operation of the Internet or third
> parties, including the imposition of any fees or charges, the Board will:
> (i) provide public notice on the Web Site explaining what policies are being
> considered for adoption and why;
> (ii) provide a reasonable opportunity for parties to comment on the adoption
> of the proposed policies, to see the comments of others, and to reply to
> those comments; and
> (iii) hold a public forum at which the proposed policy would be discussed."
> In view of this language, we still have the opportunity as "parties" to
> comment on the adoption of a proposed policy on transfers -- such "comment"
> may reasonably include a counter-proposal that reflects the user interest.
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org