ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[registrars]


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

RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com


> I am confused now. I agree 100% that a registry, its 
> employees and/or its consultants should never use information 
> to provide a competitive advantage to any registrar. That is 
> in my humble opinion is a no brainer. Such activity would 
> constitute a breach of the ICANN Registry Agreement, and 
> potential be subject to other legal action.

Let me clarify for you then. You are indeed correct in your analysis of
a registries obligation as it relates to the confidential treatment of
data and the remedies that are available in the case of a breach.

What these terms do not deal with are those registries that use this
information for their own corporate benefit. I am proposing that we
limit the value of this information by limiting the range of
circumstances under which it can be abused by a registry or a registry
subsidiary.

Further, I would ask you to clarify something for me - what do we lose
by explicitly not supporting the registry agenda? Furthering the
interests of registrars and indeed, drawing clear lines around what a
registry is and what a registrar is are clearly layed out in the
founding documents of this constituency and should be furthered by the
ongoing activities of this constituency. I am unclear as to what we gain
through the inaction that you seem to be advocating.

                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/blog


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 11:00 AM
> To: ross@tucows.com; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
> 
> 
> Ross,
> 
> I am confused now. I agree 100% that a registry, its 
> employees and/or its consultants should never use information 
> to provide a competitive advantage to any registrar. That is 
> in my humble opinion is a no brainer. Such activity would 
> constitute a breach of the ICANN Registry Agreement, and 
> potential be subject to other legal action.
> 
> Since the constituency was first formed every ICANN 
> accredited registrar has been allowed to participate in this 
> constituency. In fact, the original by-laws had a special 
> carve out to allow NSI to participate even when it had not 
> official signed as an ICANN accredited registrar. One of the 
> things that I think makes this constituency unique is that 
> everyone is able to join and voice their opinion. Those that 
> make intelligent thoughtful comments are rewarded and 
> provided respect, those that provide self serving statements 
> are quickly dismissed and ignored.
> 
> It is clear that over time certain registrars have taken 
> positions that at time benefit their company more so than the 
> overall industry. In this cases it is up to the members to 
> vote. I believe your proposal assumes that registrars cannot 
> see through a registrar that may be acting in its own self interest.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 10:44 AM
> > To: ross@tucows.com; 'Michael D. Palage'; registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
> >
> >
> >
> > I should also clarify with this post in relation to the specific 
> > allegation you made regarding Afilias shareholders, 
> specifically that 
> > "excluding [GNR from participating] in the registrar constituency 
> > would potentially require all Afilias shareholders to step down, 
> > Melbourne IT because of their interest in NeuStar, Register.com 
> > because of their interest in RegistryPro."
> >
> > If this were to occur, it would have to be as the result of a 
> > different proposal. The proposal that I set forward only limits the 
> > participation of individuals in the employ of a registry, 
> not that of 
> > organizations with shareholdings in other organizations. 
> Please do not 
> > extend the limits of the proposal to situations to which it clearly 
> > does not apply.
> >
> > -rwr
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 10:37 AM
> > > To: 'Michael D. Palage'; 'registrars@dnso.org'
> > > Subject: RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
> > >
> > >
> > > Michael,
> > >
> > > Do you intend to oppose the development of this 
> proposition or its 
> > > adoption by the constituency? The fact is that registries 
> possess a 
> > > wealth of information about my business, they accumulate 
> it in real 
> > > time and can take advantage of it on a daily basis. The 
> methods you 
> > > describe are not only incomplete, but are limited to quarterly 
> > > occurences. Please also add to the list you've set forth 
> whether or 
> > > not the registrar is current in its financial accounts with the
> > > registry, what the ebb and flow of its registration busines
> > > is, where its data-centers are located, what level of
> > > commitment it is making to the TLD from a sales and marketing
> > > perspective and on and on. Suppliers, by virtue of their
> > > position in the supply chain, have access to a tremendous
> > > amount of information. I am simply proposing that we do not
> > > allow our constituency to become an instrument of abuse by
> > > the registries.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >                        -rwr
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the 
> shore like 
> > > an idiot."
> > > - Steven Wright
> > >
> > > Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/blog
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org 
> [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] 
> > > > On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 10:26 AM
> > > > To: ross@tucows.com; registrars@dnso.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ross,
> > > >
> > > > I have worked as a consultant with Afilias since its inception 
> > > > when I help put together the original 18 registrar 
> shareholders. I 
> > > > have also worked with .coop and .aero in identifying 
> registrars to 
> > > > provide registrar services in their respective TLDs. I 
> really have 
> > > > no idea of what proprietary information that registries have 
> > > > regarding the operation of your business.
> > > >
> > > > The only documents that a registry maintains on a 
> registrar: are 
> > > > names of employees to contact (some/most of these names are 
> > > > publicly available on the ICANN web site); signed copies of 
> > > > confidentiality agreements and Registry Registrar Agreements 
> > > > (these documents are publicly available); how much money the 
> > > > registrar wishes to keep in his account (all one really 
> needs to 
> > > > do is look at the registrars quarterly payments to 
> ICANN or one of 
> > > > the industry reports and figure the number domains and 
> multiple by 
> > > > the registry fee); insurance documents (minimum terms 
> are publicly 
> > > > available); and thats about it.
> > > >
> > > > The purpose of the structural separation between VRSN 
> > > > registry/registrar was to prevent the registry from tipping its 
> > > > hat toward new technology developments and pricing advantages. 
> > > > This structural separation was critically important to provide 
> > > > registrars a level playing field to compete and one of 
> the reasons 
> > > > why in the last contract negotiations we required 90 day notice 
> > > > prior to any technical changes as a result of the IDN role out.
> > > >
> > > > In the case of PersonalNames I agree that if GNR 
> provides any type 
> > > > of competitive advantage to PersonalNames that would be a 
> > > > violation of their Registry contract that should result in 
> > > > termination of their contract. However, excluding their 
> > > > participation in the registrar constituency would potentially 
> > > > require all Afilias shareholders to step down, Melbourne IT 
> > > > because of their interest in NeuStar, Register.com because of 
> > > > their interest in RegistryPro.
> > > >
> > > > Just trying to address your concerns because I believe the 
> > > > PersonalNames/GNR is not much different from 
> > > > NetworkSolutions/VRSN. However, I do agree with a number of 
> > > > registrars that it is clearly in appropriate for the 
> registrar to 
> > > > tout its relationship with the registry in the website 
> > > > advertising. That should come down immediately in my humble 
> > > > opinion.
> > > >
> > > > Just some thoughts,
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 10:02 AM
> > > > > To: 'Michael D. Palage'; registrars@dnso.org
> > > > > Subject: RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Michael,
> > > > >
> > > > > The motion does not preclude participation in the
> > > > constituency because
> > > > > of participation in another constituency, it precludes
> > > > participation
> > > > > by an individual who may be in possession of, or come into
> > > > possession
> > > > > of, sensitive information regarding the operation of my 
> > > > > business.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >                        -rwr
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the
> > > > shore like an
> > > > > idiot."
> > > > > - Steven Wright
> > > > >
> > > > > Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/blog
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 9:59 AM
> > > > > > To: Ross Wm. Rader; registrars@dnso.org
> > > > > > Subject: RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ross,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One other concern that I want to raise is that 
> under Article 
> > > > > > X, Section 5, paragraph 3 of the ICANN by-laws, "No 
> individual 
> > > > > > or entity shall be excluded from participation in a
> > > > Constituency merely
> > > > > > because of participation in another Constituency."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mike
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org 
> > > > > > > [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > > > > > > Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 9:03 AM
> > > > > > > To: registrars@dnso.org
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would like to formally move that any representative
> > > > of any ICANN
> > > > > > > recognized gTLD registry in the possession of or with
> > > access to
> > > > > > > registry Proprietary Information
> > > > > > >
> > > > 
> (http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-apph-06ma
> > > > > > > r01.htm#A-
> > > > > > > 3.1 in the case of GNR) or Registry Sensitive Information
> > > > > > >
> > > > 
> (http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-apph-06ma
> > > > > > > r01.htm#A-
> > > > > > > 3.2 also in the case of GNR) not be permitted to
> > > > > > participate in this
> > > > > > > constituency at any level, in any capacity, for a 
> period of
> > > > > > one year
> > > > > > > since the last receipt of such information and that our
> > > > by-laws be
> > > > > > > amended to reflect this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ross Wm. Rader
> > > > > > > Tucows Inc.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>
> > > > > > > To: <registrars@dnso.org>
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 8:26 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As PersonalNames is now an ICANN accredited
> > > registrar they are
> > > > > > > eligible to
> > > > > > > > subscribe to the registrar mailing list, and they
> > > > have asked to
> > > > > > > be added.
> > > > > > > To
> > > > > > > > date PersonalNames has not paid any membership 
> dues so it 
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > not eligible
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > vote in any constituency matters.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yesterday there were several posts asking the Registrar 
> > > > > > > > Executive
> > > > > > > Committee
> > > > > > > > to schedule a call with PersonalNames. Although the
> > > Executive
> > > > > > > > Committee stands ready to assist the 
> constituency in this
> > > > > > matter, I
> > > > > > > > believe that
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > dialogue between PersonalNames and the rest of the 
> > > > > > > > registrar community
> > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > make any such call more productive.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The only PersonalNames representative that has asked to 
> > > > > > > > join
> > > > > > > the registrar
> > > > > > > > mailing list to date is Hakon Haugnes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Michael D. Palage
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 



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