Re: [ga] Provider/User Balance
- To: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] Provider/User Balance
- From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:03:09 -0800
- Cc: General Assembly of the DNSO <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, icann board address <icann-board@xxxxxxxxx>, Kathy Smith <KSMITH@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Eric and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
Your correct of course. And in part why DOC/NTIA needs to do
its job of oversight and take corrective steps. Yet sadly the
steps DOC/NTIA has at it's disposal have not been exercised adequately
for reasons that are not known and/or clear..
Hugh Dierker wrote:
> The concept of "Push-Pull" incentives has a long history in the
> international community. It fails in the regard of the omnipotence of
> the in locus parenti administering it. There are very good discussions
> of the concept for Pharmas at the UN. US uses it for land development
> and general public improvements. Pollution control is another area
> using the methodology.
> But your theorizing here seems to gloss over the ghost registrar co's
> so numerous. The capture of this constituency has occured. It is not
> too late, but you are not dealing with a tadpole anymore, it has
> already morphed into a Frog, and one with warts at that.
> If individuals were organized here then they could have the type of
> influence you look for here. If consumers are organized the can do the
> most direct push-pull incentives of anyone. "you violate public trust
> we boycott" "you do a good job we send our members and endorse you"
> You do a really bad job we sue you. You do a really a good job write
> our representatives and media about how great you are"
> This would also insulate ICANN SOs as they are today. If industry is
> sure that there is a check and balance on there machinations that is
> consumer base, then they can feel more free and confident in open and
> transparent dialogue. As long as they are dually charged to feed
> profit centers and protect the public they will be gaurded and not
> honest in their dealings.
> A funny note; As a child I was a bit of a jackass at times. I also
> grew carrots in my familiy's garden and loved them fresh. As I was
> playing with my carrots and radishes and potatoes my older brother
> needed my help with pruning. I ignored him and was eating one of my
> monsterous carrots, he whipped it from my hand and clocked me over the
> head with it to get me back to work with pruning. Well that really
> hurt and that carrot was one hell of a stick.
> Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In response to Richard's remarks on the need for enforcement "teeth"
> and Vint's suggestion to float some ideas prior to moving the
> discussion to a PDP stage, I would begin by cautioning parties to this
> debate that "coercive" contract enforcement mechanisms are not the
> only options to consider.
> Let us look at an extreme case highlighted by the recent hijacking of
> the panix.com domain. It is certainly possible within the context of
> ICANN contracts to establish monetary penalties or sanctions such as a
> temporary loss of the ADD command privilege; on the other hand,
> non-coercive measures can also have a significant effect. If, for
> example, it was widely reported that ICANN had concluded that a
> certain registrar breached their agreements and was tacitly
> responsible for a security lapse that resulted in a domain name
> hijacking, the public would assuredly choose to shun that registrar's
> service for a period of time. That measure might be as effective as
> invoking financial penalties in order to obtain the desired results
> (protecting the security of the DNS).
> It think it important that ICANN have at its discretion the right to
> employ non-coercive measures to secure contract enforcement if it
> believes that such measures may suffice to accomplish the goal of
> repairing a contract breech. It would probably be wise to outline the
> range of coercive and non-coercive contract enforcement mechanisms
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827