Re: [ga] Re: RAA 3.7.1
Stuart and all assembly members,
I think both of you are correct to a point. Stuart, it seems that
you are correct that 3.7.1 not JUST ICANN, in whatever sense
that means, and there are several that could be attributed here,
is NOT itself *Required* to develop alone, a code of conduct.
But Danny is also correct to a point regarding 3.7.1 in that
the onus of responsibility in that ICANN is required in part to
develop such a code of conduct WITH (Read together with)
the Accredited Registrars and than those same ICANN-Accredited registrars
must *Approve* that same Code of Conduct.
In any event as it is written, 3.7.1 seems to be ambiguous in it's
present form. Therefore it would seem reasonable and prudent
to change it to be far less ambiguous...
M. Stuart Lynn wrote:
> Dear Danny:
> I do believe your reading of 3.7.1. is not correct. It does not
> *require* ICANN to develop such a code of conduct. It requires
> registrars to *abide* by such a code should such a code be adopted
> following a consensus of accredited registrars. Clearly, the
> prerequisite action is for the accredited registrars to arrive at a
> consensus on such a code, something they have not yet achieved.
> ICANN cannot unilaterally modify its agreements with other parties.
> There is nothing within the scope of the Blueprint or the ERC that
> would change this situation.
> At 6:07 PM -0400 8/21/02, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> >Dear Stuart,
> >For some time now, many members in the Community have recognized the need for
> >the domain name industry (and registrars in particular) to adopt a Code of
> >Conduct. The Registrar Accreditation Agreement includes the following
> >language on this subject:
> >3.7.1 In the event ICANN adopts a specification or policy, supported by a
> >consensus of ICANN-Accredited registrars, establishing or approving a Code of
> >Conduct for ICANN-Accredited registrars, Registrar shall abide by that Code.
> >Can you perhaps comment upon whether ICANN in the spirit of Reform is
> >considering adopting a specification or policy establishing such a Code of
> >Conduct? According to my reading of the above language, the onus appears to
> >be on ICANN, as the coordinator, to develop such a Code (which would then be
> >subject to ratification by a consensus decision of the accredited
> >registrars). Is my understanding of this matter correct, and do you
> >contemplate action along these lines?
> >Best regards,
> >Danny Younger
> This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html