RE: [ga] Proposed Advisory

[jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Jonathon and all,

  althought I sometimes disagree with Danny, this is not
one of those times.  Registrar abuse is not lessoning
it is instead increasing.  RegistryFly was only the very
tip of the iceberg.  It has been clear long ago now
that ICANN is either unable, unwilling, or both, to hold
their registrars and registries accountable.  As a result
registrants, and most especially users are the parties
abused repeatedly.

Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"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]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of
Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 214-244-4827


-----Original Message-----
>From: "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Dec 3, 2007 8:55 PM
>To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>, Kieren McCarthy 
><kierenmccarthy@xxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: [ga] Proposed Advisory
>
>
>Danny, 
>
>Your level of discourse is usually much more thoughtful and much less
>pejorative.
>
>The policy is "clear" because you say so without explanation.  The two
>largest retail registrars are "rogue" because you don't agree with their
>security policies.  ICANN staff is acting as "wimps" because they ask
>for public comment prior to taking action.  Who appointed you the sole
>judge and jury of all things ICANN?
>
>You'd be singing a much different tune if you've ever had a name
>hijacked or our policies prevented one of your names from being
>hijacked.  
>
>Best,
>
>Jon
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
>Of Danny Younger
>Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 7:34 PM
>To: Nevett, Jonathon; Kieren McCarthy
>Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: [ga] Proposed Advisory
>
>
>Jon,
>
>I'm well aware of your views on this matter as I have
>read the earlier comments that you submitted on behalf
>of Network Solutions.  What you regard as an improper
>action by Staff, I and others view as an appropriate
>enforcement measure designed to curb abuse.  There is
>no policy development issue here -- the policy is
>clear and Network Solutions (among others) is in
>flagrant violation of established policy.  My only
>regret was that ICANN Staff chose to act as wimps by
>putting out a "proposed" advisory instead of firmly
>laying down the law as Louis Touton certainly would
>have done.  
>
>We'll have to wait and see if Staff will prove
>themselves to be gutless cowards unwilling to take on
>the larger registrars that have arbitrarily denied
>legitimate transfer requests, or if they will act to
>forcefully put these rogue registrars in their place.
>
>regards,
>Danny
>
>
>--- "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>
>> Danny:
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> As you probably have seen, in addition to the ICANN
>> staff advisory that
>> you cite below, the GNSO also has issued a draft
>> advisory for public
>> comment on transfer issues (see
>>
>http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#transfer-policy).
>>   The GNSO had
>> formed a working group to focus on Transfer Policy
>> issues, and the GNSO
>> advisory is an outgrowth of that working group.  The
>> GNSO will evaluate
>> the public input and decide whether the original or
>> an amended draft
>> should be released.  Per the ICANN Bylaws, the GNSO
>> is the appropriate
>> forum for policy development work to consider any
>> potential changes to
>> the Transfer Policy.  To the extent that you or any
>> other members of the
>> community wish to clarify/change the Transfer
>> Policy, it should come
>> from the GNSO and not ICANN staff.  It appears that
>> ICANN staff's
>> attempt to alter an existing policy via fiat may
>> have been set aside in
>> lieu of the bottom-up ICANN policy development
>> process - a cornerstone
>> of ICANN's existence.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Jon Nevett
>> 
>> Network Solutions
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
>> Of Danny Younger
>> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 7:53 AM
>> To: Kieren McCarthy
>> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [ga] Proposed Advisory
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Kieren,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> A question has been posed on the Public
>> Participation
>> 
>> website; could we trouble you to look into this...
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> "Status of the Proposed Advisory?
>> 
>> What is the status of this Proposed Advisory, to
>> stop
>> 
>> this practice?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>
>http://www.icann.org/announcements/proposed-advisory-19sep07.htm
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Network Solutions is STILL blocking domain
>> transfers,
>> 
>> if the domain owner updates their contact info, even
>> 
>> though the advisory clearly states "A registrant
>> 
>> change to Whois information is not a valid basis for
>> 
>> denying a transfer request." I suspect GoDaddy
>> hasn't
>> 
>> stopped doing this either.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> What is the next step, after hearing public comments
>> 
>> on this proposed advisory?"
>> 
>> http://public.icann.org/node/244#comment-661
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>
>
>
> 
>________________________________________________________________________
>____________
>Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
>http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>