<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion
Elliot and Ross,
Elliot, first off I would appreciate these or any comments dealing
with actual DNSO and DNSO GA business to be kept on list.
So I am responding here back to the GA in my following response...
I, and quite a number of our members have been very supportive
os several ideas that Ross has put forth in the past. I just can't
figure out why he has such rancor towards myself and on occasions
towards our members. I and a number of our members are also
not sure if Ross or tucows is on the side of the registrants or
the registrars in what he says below or not. Hence my specific
clarification (below ) and "Please Advise"... ???
Elliot Noss wrote:
> now thats karma. you figure jeff out for once and all and he heartily
> supports you!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
> Cc: "gen full" <ga-full@dnso.org>
> Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 4:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion
>
> > Ross and all assembly members,
> >
> > Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> >
> > > I think we're diving down into semantic extremely quickly (I think) - to
> > > circle back, why is AA "a bad thing" and what is the counter-proposal
> that
> > > replaces it with a "good thing"?
> >
> > I agree with you here also Ross if you mean or are in around about way
> > suggesting that a counter-proposal would include specific language
> > that "AA" ( Apparent Authority) resides with the Registrant, NOT
> > the Registrar or the Registry for any specific Domain Name...
> > If not, than we, and all of our members that are your, and other
> registrars
> > customers are decidedly NOT in agreement... Please advise.
> >
> >
> > > Not being a lawyer, perhaps I'm failing to
> > > grasp the significance of some small nuance here, and if that is the
> case, I
> > > will certainly defer. *But*, I still believe that the draft that is on
> the
> > > table is pretty responsible with the exception of the EA definition.
> And, as
> > > much as I would like to continue this discussion, I fail to see where it
> > > solves the portability issue that has been hanging around for the last
> > > umpteen months.
> > >
> > > The fact is that (tens of thousands of) registrants that *have been
> validly
> > > identified as being legitimately representative of the interests of the
> > > registrant* are finding it difficult, if not impossible, to move domain
> > > names away from a registrar to one that better suits their taste. It is
> > > certainly my view that this is the complete scope of the problem that
> must
> > > be fixed - and, no one to date has been able to convincingly demonstrate
> > > otherwise.
> >
> > Very much agreed here. This is also true to an extent with Delete
> > as well...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > So, if this is the case, then why have we spent over a year on an issue
> > > (elapsed DNSO time, not elapsed NC time) that can be very simply fixed
> by
> > > removing the loophole in the contract that allows precious few
> registrars to
> > > play games and wreak havoc on their registrants?
> >
> > A very good question here as well Ross.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Another challenge for the GA - read the registrar constituency proposal
> that
> > > has been on the table since October. (you can find it here
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00152.html). If the
> > > consensus is that it sucks and needs to be scrapped and/or significantly
> > > modified, or even slightly improved - then let's discuss that. If this
> > > doesn't sound reasonable, then produce a counter-proposal and get it
> into
> > > Dan's hands. Individual proposals carry just as much weight as those
> > > generated by groups at this point - the key is to get to the ideas, not
> > > debate which "idea" has more support*. The alternative to an effective
> DNSO
> > > consensus policy process determining what happens on this issue is that
> the
> > > registrars take the proposal off the table, abandon the DNSO consensus
> > > policy process and incorporate the current proposal into a binding Code
> of
> > > Conduct.
> >
> > A "Code of Conduct" unless incorporated in an amendment to the
> > existing Registrar contract that has been voted upon by any and all
> > registrants that wish to participate, would be huge mistake and
> > likely incur further legal wrangling that is both unnecessary and
> > ill advised...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I've pulled everyone off the cc list, for the simple reason that this
> > > message is directed at the DNSO, not at anyone one in particular
> (including
> > > Dan to whom sparked this response)...
> > >
> > > -rwr
> > >
> > > *That part comes soon enough.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Dan Steinberg" <synthesis@videotron.ca>
> > > To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
> > > Cc: <DannyYounger@cs.com>; <ga@dnso.org>; <mcade@att.com>;
> > > <roessler@does-not-exist.org>; <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>;
> > > <RJS@lojo.co.nz>; <nick.wood@nom-iq.com>; <grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz>;
> > > <crusso@verisign.com>; <mcf@uwm.edu>; <orobles@nic.mx>;
> > > <james.love@cptech.org>
> > > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 5:12 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion
> > >
> > > > To be more precise...that gets you only part of the way. There is
> > > > another party to the transaction who may or may not be bound by this.
> > > > and the 'may or may not'...could vary a lot depending on the fact
> > > > pattern.
> > > >
> > > > "Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > To be more precise (and perhaps less bold ;) Registrars and
> Registries
> > > have
> > > > > agreed to the terms under which transfers will be conducted
> according to
> > > the
> > > > > laws in the jurisdictions that I mentioned. Everything else flows
> from
> > > > > there.
> > > > >
> > > > > -rwr
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Dan Steinberg" <synthesis@videotron.ca>
> > > > > To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
> > > > > Cc: <DannyYounger@cs.com>; <ga@dnso.org>; <mcade@att.com>;
> > > > > <roessler@does-not-exist.org>; <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>;
> > > > > <RJS@lojo.co.nz>; <nick.wood@nom-iq.com>;
> <grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz>;
> > > > > <crusso@verisign.com>; <mcf@uwm.edu>; <orobles@nic.mx>;
> > > > > <james.love@cptech.org>
> > > > > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 2:53 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion
> > > > >
> > > > > > actually...I beg to differ. The relevant jurisdiction claimed by
> one
> > > > > > party is that. Just wait till it goes to court before making such
> bold
> > > > > > assertions please?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > agreement on the rest.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is an international environment we are dealing with here
> > > folks.
> > > > > A
> > > > > > > > good chunk of the world does not even operate under common
> > > law...so
> > > > > > > > agency law as Ross learned it...is totally inapplicable. there
> are
> > > > > > > > analogous concepts, yes. but the correspondence and statute,
> and
> > > > > caselaw
> > > > > > > > and interpretation and legal foundations...are completely
> > > different.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Actually no - for 99% of the transfers, the relevant
> jurisdiction is
> > > > > > > Virginia or Delaware.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think Danny Younger makes a good point. So why not focus on
> > > coming
> > > > > up
> > > > > > > > with a definition we all want to see inserted into contractual
> > > terms
> > > > > > > > like the agreements between registrant and registrar, etc?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think that's the whole purpose of this exercise. Problem
> being,
> > > > > despite
> > > > > > > the constant criticism from some quarters, there isn't a lot of
> > > drafting
> > > > > > > going on. The core of a successful task force will always be
> > > competing
> > > > > > > proposals surrounding by cogent debate. Without it, nothing
> > > effective
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > really be accomplished.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I strongly dare the GA to put together a document such as you
> have
> > > > > described
> > > > > > > Dan. The TF needs this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -rwr
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Dan Steinberg
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> > > > > > 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
> > > > > > Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
> > > > > > J9B 1N1 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Dan Steinberg
> > > >
> > > > SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> > > > 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
> > > > Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
> > > > J9B 1N1 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca
> > > > --
> > > > 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 124k members/stakeholders 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
> >
> >
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders 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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|