Re: [ga] WLS: Fair Warning

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

Why is there not a Domain Customer's bill of rights? And where is there not
a uniform set of rules regarding the operations of the Registrars
themselves. This puts the customer on the short end of the stick. Isn't the
FTC supposed to protect us from things like this?

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message -----
From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 2:57 PM
Subject: [ga] WLS: Fair Warning


> Remember the VeriSign contract renegotiations?  The DNSO has already once
> recently been jerked around by the ICANN Board with regard to VeriSign
> proposals.  Stuart Lynn had argued to the Department of Commerce that no
> "policy" matters were implicated in the contract revisions, stating:
>
> "As this recitation indicates, the ultimate Names Council recommendations
to
> ICANN are, in general, not focused on "policy" issues, but rather are
> suggestions about how the proposed new agreements could be modified, by
> changing contractual dates and the like, to make them better agreements in
> the view of those supporting the resolutions. These expressions are
certainly
> important, but they can hardly be described as representing the kinds of
> policy issues that are, pursuant to ICANN's bylaws, the initial
> responsibility of the DNSO within the ICANN structure. The only issue that
> has been prominently mentioned in this discussion that could even arguably
be
> termed a "policy" matter is the issue of common ownership of registry and
> registrar businesses. Thus, it is useful to focus on that point to
illustrate
> why the ICANN Board and management concluded that the proposed new
agreements
> were operational, not policy, matters."
> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/lynn-letter-to-rose-16apr01.htm
>
> If anyone is opposed to the VeriSign WLS proposal, I would recommend that
all
> arguments be framed in terms of "policy".  Otherwise, this contract
revision
> will proceed on schedule just like the last contract revision.  Don't be
> stupid twice.  If there are policy implications, make them clear.
> --
> 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
>

--
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