DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & transfers

----- Original Message -----
From: "vinton g. cerf" <vinton.g.cerf@wcom.com>
To: "Don Brown" <donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net>; <owner-ga@dnso.org>
Cc: <DannyYounger@cs.com>; <vcerf@mci.net>; <ga@dnso.org>; <lynn@icann.org>;
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & transfers

> > snip
> the information I have seems to show that these specifics are in the
> contract between registrars and registry at least for the particular
> case of .com/.net/.org so ICANN does not have 3rd party standing to
> intervene for that case. The newer gTLD contracts are a bit more
> refined.
> It looks so me as if we need something more refined than dis-
> accreditation as the principal tool providing incentive to adhere
> to contract terms.
> v
Agreed.To have dis-accreditation as the only method of "dealing" with a
contractual dispute is unworkable, being blunt, expensive and without regard
to the likely strengths of the protagonists.

Why not a contractually mandated Registry Dispute Resolution Process, ie
online compulsory arbitration?


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 >>>