Re: [ga] List Rules

[JFC Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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