DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

RE: [nc-transfer] Objection!

Danny, thank you for your feedback. It has been challenging for the
constituencies to name a single person to represent them.  

I am sure that others will have edits to the resolution and welcome them. 

I don't agree that I've been captured by any constituency, Danny.  Transfers
affect any registrant,  not just the registrars and registries.   

-----Original Message-----
From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 12:06 AM
To: nc-transfer@dnso.org
Cc: mcade@att.com
Subject: [nc-transfer] Objection!


I must strenuously object to both your proposed resolution and to your 
continued role as interim chair of this Task Force.  

This proposal is not the formulation of an unbiased leader that has 
diligently evaluated both sides of the issue and has rigidly followed 
long-established and well-defined consensus determination procedures...  
instead you have unabashedly become the shill of the Registrar Executive 
Committee and are doing no more than parroting their position and attempting

to hijack what should be a thoughtful and concerted process to arrive at 

1.  The Task Force as constituted still does not have its full complement of

members, and any resolution at this point would be procedurally premature.
2.  Terms of reference for this Task Force have not even been discussed.
3.  Not all constituencies participated in the registrar briefing, nor have 
they had the opportunity to review months worth of relevant dialogue of a 
rather complex issue on the registrar list.
4.  Representatives of the broader registrant community have not yet been 
accepted into this Task Force.
5.  The views of the Verisign organization with respect to this matter have 
not yet been received, let alone considered.
6.   Within the meaning of the ICANN by-laws there is no such thing as an 
"interim consensus policy".
7.  You cannot make the assertion that the Draft Protocol "has received 
consensus support from active registrars who represent the majority of 
registered names" because this simply is not true.  The voting record 
indicates that only a small portion of accredited registrars participated in

the vote.  As such, this ballot alone does not constitute consensus.
8.  How can we direct Staff to undertake modification of all affected 
agreements, when the Registry-Registrar Agreement is strictly a bi-lateral 
contract between Verisign, Inc. and the respective registrars... ICANN isn't

even a signatory to the contract.
9.  Generating a resolution before any discussion has taken place is not 
consistent with "procedures designed to ensure fairness".
10.  Asking the ICANN Board to immediately act on a resolution that has not 
even been put out for public comment is also in direct violation of the 

If you have no respect for due process, you cannot chair this TF.

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