Re: [ga] More legal ammunition against WLS

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

George and all assembly members,

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> I was perusing the Registrar agreement with ICANN some more. It's at:
>
> http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm
>
> Lots of good stuff in there, which Verisign seems to have overlooked.
> Section 4 talks about "PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHMENT OR REVISION OF
> SPECIFICATIONS AND POLICIES"
>
> Sections 4.2, and 4.2.4:
>
> "4.2 Topics for New and Revised Specifications and Policies. New and
> revised specifications and policies may be established on the following
> topics:"
>
> "4.2.4 principles for allocation of Registered Names (e.g.,
> first-come/first-served, timely renewal, holding period after
> expiration);"
>
> It is reasonable to believe that WLS would represent an alteration of
> the allocation of Registered Names, and thus requires a new or revised
> specification and/or policy.

  I don't see how George.  Section 4.2.4 id dealing with INITIAL
registration of a DN, not DN that have lapsed due to non renewal.


>
>
> Next, combine this with Section 4.3 and 4.1, which discuss "Consensus
> Policies", and Verisign is trapped.

  Yep, here you have something...

>
>
> "4.3.2 In the event that Registrar disputes the presence of such a
> consensus, it shall seek review of that issue from an Independent
> Review Panel established under ICANN's bylaws....In the event that
> Registrar seeks review and the Independent Review Panel sustains the
> Board's determination that the policy is based on a consensus among
> Internet stakeholders represented in the ICANN process, then Registrar
> must implement such policy unless it promptly seeks and obtains a stay
> or injunctive relief under Subsection 5.6."
>
> Section 5.6 allows for arbitration, thus reducing legal costs, "at the
> election of either party". It would allow one to challenge whether
> there was a consensus.
>
> With Verisign admitting to a lack of consensus, and not seeking one, it
> should be a slam dunk case for the majority registrars, who have voted
> against WLS in the DNSO RC.

  Also agreed here as well.  However in that 1.) ICANN is responsible
for the initial oversight, this provision is not likely to be enforced.
Hence
you would have a beef with the ICANN Staff, and 2.) In that there is
no "Official" vote on WLS which I pushed for but got little support
on, it would be difficult to counter claim that a consensus was not
present either.

>
>
> I'm not a lawyer, so do your own review, of course. But, if ICANN had
> any sense, WLS has as good a chance of being approved as Britney Spears
> has at winning a Best Actress Oscar next year.

  Well if Britney cozy's up with the right folks at the academy, she
just might win that Oscar next year.  >;)  Catch my drift here George??
If not here is another more direct hint.  It not how well you know the
policy,
but how well you know those that are responsible for it...  So George,
either pucker up, or pony up the legal fees!

>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®
> http://movies.yahoo.com/
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html