<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] List Rules
- To: "Elisabeth Porteneuve" <elisabeth.porteneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Danny Younger'" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Hugh Dierker'" <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>, <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] List Rules
- From: JFC Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:17:54 +0200
Thank you for this evaluation. Very clear.
It shows that the real problem belongs to the inherent technical
risks of the ICANN-down registrars hierarchy instead of a
registrant-up professional heterarchy. A change in the pricing and
service quality culture could most probably help in reversing this.
But most probably as complex and culturally difficult for ICANN to
understand as Multingual Internet for the IETF.
ICANN and IETF say their Internet is decentralised (network centric).
The WSIS says that our Information Society Internet is "people
centric, à dimension humaine, centrada en la persona". Even if they
did "augment their IQ" at being together (they try hard since Doug
Engelbart) this is something they may still take some time to conciliate.
jfc
At 15:45 01/04/2008, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
I went through PPT presentations attached to the quoted message (via
Danny)
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg05626.html,
re-read Jeff Neuman's quotes from New Delhi (via Dominik)
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg01071.html
, Ross Rader's note
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg01300.html
, but also browsed contractual reports ICANN receives from
registries at http://www.icann.org/tlds/monthly-reports/ ,
especially com-net ones.
At the end of my reading, I think I understand better.
First of all, I understand the AGP serves the large spectra of non
written purposes, for the benefit of registrars and their resellers.
My blunt perception from PPTs is that a number of registrars run
insecure software, and let their uneducated resellers to do as much
mess as possible - all that is on the dark side of the moon, because
outside of ICANN's contracts, AGP is a kind of insurance to fix
unspoken disasters.
Secondly, VeriSign's reports clearly indicate that some registrars -
very few - delete N (big N) times more domains than add or renew,
and that is a permanent situation. VeriSign's benefit is that their
servers' performances are permanently benched and able to withstand a lot.
Third, I do not see much AGP benefit to registrants, they do not
have EPP access to anything, and IMHO cannot make many mistakes
(typo happens, of course).
Eventually I concur with proposed GNSO (Council?) motion - 50
deletes or 10% - to discriminate between occasional mistakes or
incompetence of the dark side and permanent tasting by some registrars.
Last, I think ICANN's should compile tendencies of monthly reports
to show to the Board any new piggyback services happening in registrations.
My 2 euro-cents
Elisabeth Porteneuve
----- Original Message ----- From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Danny Younger'" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>; "'Hugh Dierker'"
<hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>; <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 11:04 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] List Rules
Thanks, Danny, that could be really helpful in trying to sort this issue
out. At least for me.
RG
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Danny Younger
Sent: Monday, 31 March 2008 21:49
To: Hugh Dierker; debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ga] List Rules
Hello Eric,
As much as I like motions, we would in a better position if
we could draft an issues paper laying out the pros and cons
of the AGP. I note that the registrars have already created
a powerpoint on the benefits of the AGP -- you can view it by
clicking on the attachment at this url:
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg05626.html
By this way, this powerpoint was quite convincing (at least
to Board director Steven Goldstein that referenced this
presentation at the Washington JPA session), so our
counterpoint arguments must necessarily be of equal or
greater caliber if we are to convince both the GNSO and the
Board over the objections of the registrars.
regards,
Danny
--- Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The list has run along very smoothly for several months. The main
> reason is voluntary compliance with the rules. Once this concept
> breaks down so does the list. We are not talking about
individual one
> time lapses. For constant repeat violations we must stand
strong and
> enforce the rules.
>
> We are at a point for the first time in months, that the list is
> coalescing into the form of producing a statement/motion. The AGP
> issue seems to have come to a head and more formal resolution
> procedures may be appropriate. I believe it is at a motion
stage with
> 4 seconds. If the desire is to move forward in a constructive
> effective matter, we should hear that from the members.
>
> Eric
______________________________________________________________
______________________
No Cost - Get a month of Blockbuster Total Access now. Sweet
deal for Yahoo! users and friends.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text1.com
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|