Re: [ga] Karl's comments at the 2003 Senate hearings on allocation systems

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree danny. a policy for when, not if, a registry fails, is necessary.
But reviews of business plans beforehand are not and are an invasion of
privacy.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
"Karl Auerbach" <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Danny Younger"
<dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>; <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 9:22 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Karl's comments at the 2003 Senate hearings on allocation
systems


> Re:  "If a TLD fails, why should ICANN do anything
> about it?"
>
> ICANN Board member Mike Palage, in his Registry
> Failure White Paper writes:
>
> "One of the important aspects to be considered in
> connection with a gTLD registry failure is in the
> impact on Internet stakeholders, most importantly
> domain name registrants
> within that TLD. Article 1 of the ICANN bylaws clearly
> establish it's role as a technical coordinating body,
> and not a consumer protection agency.  Notwithstanding
> these limitations, there are times in which policy
> development reasonably and appropriately
> related to these technical functions can intersect
> with consumer protection, i.e. redemption grace
> period, UDRP, etc."
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/new-gtld-questions/pdfD95Qf6rJO1.pdf
>
> One of the goals laid out in the White Paper was to
> "provide accountability to and protection for the
> international Internet community".
>
> I believe that ICANN, in its limited technical role,
> can and should as a matter of policy offer protections
> whenever possible.  It already extends protections to
> trademark holders, it is contemplating additional
> protections for IGOs, and has already provided the
> basis for certain protections for registrants by way
> of escrow provisioning requirements and domain
> portability policies.
>
> I agree with the DOC and the ICANN Board that a
> registry failure constitutes a stability issue.
> Having a registry failover program in place occasions
> no harm.  It is prudent.
>
>
> --- sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> > > On the other hand, I'm not willing to take the
> > > cavalier attitude that if a registry fails it's
> > not a
> > > big deal (as invariably it's the registrants that
> > will
> > > be affected).
> >
> > Why not?! Are you a Communist or something?!
> > (sarcasm intended)
> >
> > >
> > > That said, I would be comfortable passing on the
> > > business plan examination if I has assurances that
> > > ICANN had developed a registry failover program.
> > >
> > > My policy recommendation:  To expedite the launch
> > of
> > > new gTLDs ICANN should eliminate registry
> > financial
> > > considerations as a selection criterion; to
> > safeguard
> > > the public interest ICANN should create a registry
> > > failover program.
> >
> > And what end would this failover program serve
> > exactly?  If a TLD fails,
> > why should ICANN do anything about it?  Why don't we
> > just let the market
> > decide, as Karl and Co. are proposing, and let the
> > chips fall where they
> > may? Or, Danny, do you mean that you want your cake
> > but you want to eat it
> > as well?
> >
> > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > ---
> >
> > I was from Connecticut, whose Constitution declares
> > "that all political
> > power is inherent in the people, and all free
> > governments are founded on
> > their authority and instituted for their benefit;
> > and that they have AT
> > ALL TIMES an undeniable and indefeasible right to
> > ALTER THEIR FORM OF
> > GOVERNMENT in such a manner as they may think
> > expedient.
> >      --- A Connecticut Yankee by Twain, Mark
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com