Re: [ga] Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF
Ok, since both Ross and Joanna are talking about 'me', I figure it's time to
I am the person the GA selected to be Transfer TF representative. And I have
been working on the TF ever since, including attending teleconferences at
different hours, reviewing documents and most important, working on a
questionnaire to gather needed input to the process as per the charter.
First, if I were thin-skinned, I would probably take offence at Joanna's
contention that there has been no work done since I was elected TF
representative. There has been both visible process (documents submitted and
revised, etc.) that anyone can view on the mailing list archives and
teleconferences (at least one of which GA members were invited to attend in on
but no one did).
Second, if issues relating to bankrupty are going to be publically discussed at
all, I would suggest that bankruptcy specialists from the relevant jurisdictions
be called in to provide at least an overview of the applicable issues. FYI,
every jurisdiction that I know of (and I know so little about bankruptcy that I
refuse to even play a bankruptcy specialist on TV) has laws that look at (and in
some cases rolll back) financial transactions of people as they sink to prevent
siphoning off assets that might otherwise be divided among creditors.
"Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:
> > False. As a Registrant, I provided feedback to the Registrars through Ross
> > Radar over a period of time before this final paper was published, and in
> > particular objected to the proposed clause relating to the Registrar's
> > ability to conduct a bankruptcy search on the Registrant, that allows the
> > Registrar to deny a transfer for this reason, notwithstanding that the
> > Registrars have no clue how to conduct a bankruptcy search in every nation
> > on the globe. Furthermore, not one single person in the community has ever
> > stated any useful purpose for this clause. This is a matter of invasion of
> > privacy that I doubt any Registrant would voluntarily agree, yet is being
> > completely overlooked by the Registrars.
> > Secondly, I made stringent efforts to be included on this task force as a
> > Registrant representative, mindful to ensure the Registrant community was
> > included in deliberations, but was thrown off (literally) by Marilyn Cade,
> > who silenced my voice by denying my posting privileges. Some time later, a
> > GA Representative was appointed, since when there has been no work done.
> > These are the facts.
> How quickly history becomes distorted.
> The conversation that we had did indeed center on the registrars capability
> to deny a transfer based on a registrant "pending bankruptcy". No such
> conversation occurred concerning anything remotely related to a registrar
> doing bankruptcy searches on anyone - in fact, no such power is granted to
> Registrars in any contract related to ICANN that I'm aware of. Further,
> these conversations occurred in the context of preparation of the best
> practices document and not the TF. Each comment received on the RC Transfers
> BP doc were taken into account and included where appropriate.
> Second, I believe that your participation as a registrant representative was
> not permitted simply because you do not represent registrants. Once a GA
> representative was identified that was willing to represent the interests of
> the GA, they were appointed without any delay whatsoever.
> This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
> Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1 e-mail:email@example.com
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