DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

[ga] Re: Request for a Working Group

Oh come on.  ICANN's restructuring plan bears no relation to the white
paper or the MOU.  Everything is on the table, up for grabs.

Let's do it right.

I see a very very light ICANN, focused on minimal technical criteria.  The
issues of consumer law and the like belong where they are dealt with by
trained professionals.

I don't think the US should set world consumer law.  Nor should ICANN.

My ideal ICANN would have so few 'policy' duties that we would agree
collectively that elections were not worth the trouble....

On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> Michael,
> ICANN's mission is defined within its Memorandum of Understanding with the 
> U.S. Department of Commerce within which ICANN is required to "collaborate on 
> the design, development, and testing of a plan for introduction of 
> competition in domain name registration services, including:  development of 
> an accreditation procedure for registrars and procedures that subject 
> registrars to consistent requirements designed to promote a stable and 
> robustly competitive DNS, as set forth in the Statement of Policy". 
> That Statement of Policy, the White Paper, states:  "During the transition 
> the U.S. Government expects to:  recognize the role of the new corporation to 
> establish and implement DNS policy and to establish terms (including 
> licensing terms) applicable to new and existing gTLDs and registries under 
> which registries, registrars and gTLDs are permitted to operate".  It goes on 
> to state:  "As outlined in appropriate organizational documents, (Charter, 
> Bylaws, etc.) the new corporation should:  direct the Interim Board to 
> develop policies for the addition of TLDs, and establish the qualifications 
> for domain name registries and domain name registrars within the system". 
> ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreement is a contract that was created in 
> compliance with our mission directives that granted ICANN the right to 
> establish operational terms applicable to registrars.  That you believe that 
> ICANN should re-define its mission is immaterial.  Until such time as the MoU 
> is amended, we must live with the mission that we have been given.  That 
> mission allows us to establish qualifications for registrars, and I seek to 
> review and amend those qualifications to better protect the registrant 
> interest.
> I'm curious, what role do you see for either registrants or the At-Large in 
> ICANN if their user interests are only to be satisfied within the context of 
> action on the part of national agencies?

		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--

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

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