DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] First Draft of "Letter from Registrars Constituency to Stuart Lynn"

erica wrote:
Joop says:
> When can the registrants themselves have their say in how they would like
> to be "protected"?
I agree that this is an important issue and I know that many registrars
would be interested in developing a code of conduct incorporating a
'customer bill of rights' or something of the sort.  We already have
protection for customer IP rights but this is just one aspect of the
consumer protection issue.  Others aspects include name portability
(otherwise known as transfers), change of registrant, and billing.
One way of moving the issue forward would be for the NC to put together a
cross constituency WG to identify consumer protection principles to be
incorporated into ICANN policy.  Alternatively, the GA or any constituency
is free to draft a set of principles, and refer them to the NC for
consideration and endorsement by the DNSO.
Which comments are precisely in accord with what the Best Practices
describes.  The ISSUE having been identified, here we have two
SUGGESTIONS on how that ISSUE might be addressed. This is
what is meant when it is said that the Best Practices is not a set of
rules, but rather a tool that can be used in reaching viable decisions.
In the ordinary course of events, vigorous DISCUSSION  of these
SUGGESTIONS should now follow, out of which someone might
say, "well, let's pick one of these to pursue." So in that case there might
be a POLL -- not in every case, but maybe in this one. Whichever way
that fell, one or the other (or maybe both) of the sets of principles noted
above, assuming that a BASIS had been provided therefor (any work
product of a WG or an identified constituency would inherently have a
BASIS) would then gain RECOGNITION as a PROPOSAL, which
might then be subjected not to mere DISCUSSION, but to more rigorous
DEBATE, and ultimately there would develop a MOTION that would
itself gain the necessary RECOGNITION, etc., etc., and ultimately a
VOTE would be carried out. These are all natural courses of events,
and have been given these names mostly so that people can track what
is going on, what has gone before, and what is yet to come in order to
be able to participate knowledgeably and thus reach some final result
that would be worthy of being identified as the will of the General Assembly.

The developing description of the Best Practices can be followed on
ga-rules, for those who would like to know more about it, or indeed
participate in its development.

Bill Lovell



At any event, it is up to the DNSO to prgress the issue.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joop Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
To: <dannyyounger@cs.com>; <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] First Draft of "Letter from Registrars Constituency to
Stuart Lynn"

> At 20:40 24/07/01 -0400, dannyyounger@cs.com wrote:
> >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/doc00040.doc
> quote
> The Constituency is clearly concerned that certain registrars are
> new and onerous transfer policies that create confusion and registrant
> burdens and dissatisfaction. We fear that this is to preserve their
> customer base under the guise of consumer protection.
> unquote
> Two self-serving transfer policies, both promoted under the guise of
> registrant "protection".
> -joop
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.

Any terms above that are not familiar to the reader may
possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found at:

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>