[nc-transfer] RE: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion
- To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <DannyYounger@cs.com>, <email@example.com>, "Transfer TF (E-mail)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: [nc-transfer] RE: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion
- From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 10:45:29 -0400
- Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>, <RJS@lojo.co.nz>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Thread-Index: AcIDQ47uVw1aCpNkT4OS/FqADBSn7QBfoyeA
- Thread-Topic: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion
Conversations back and forth are helpful to build understanding, and can be part of the "record".
As chair, I note:
We are trying to take input and concrete suggestions as well as comments on our document.
The Task Force's work will be enhanced by concrete submissions to the Task Force, with specific language. We would welcome any definition(s) which you might wish to offer, Danny.
I have included the Transfer TF list. The previous cc's were part, but not all of the Transfer TF.
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 12:54 PM
To: DannyYounger@cs.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; email@example.com;
firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion
> In the document that is not "your draft", it is written:
> "The Task Force suggests that, after further examination, that apparent
> authority is a well-defined legal concept and the lack of specific
> within the relevant body of ICANN policy should not be a barrier to the
> of this task force to make policy recommendations."
> Why continue to be obtuse? Is there a particular reason why you will not
> provide a specific definition?
Speaking from a drafting team perspective, what is obtuse about the present
legal definition of AA? IANAL, but in agency law, the specific definition is
> Further, what problems do you have with the
> Australian model as cited?
Speaking from a personal/Tucows/Constituency member perspective the
Australian model is one of the finest examples of avoiding the tough
problems that I have seen in a long time. I am sure that it works within the
confines of their limited scope, but until CP/IP gains wider support, using
tree-bark to conduct business in a global market over the Internet remains
With that being said, I am sure that if there is any interest within the TF
in exploring the .au model then I am sure that it will be discussed. My
initial reaction is that it won't be a very productive discussion in that it
solves the wrong problems.