<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Did a dog eat dot-cat's homework?
- To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [ga] Did a dog eat dot-cat's homework?
- From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:47:00 -0700
Eric and all,
Please help me to understand, my wee brain is specifically limited
or constrained to understand you point Eric. So I'll venture a
WAG ( Wild ass guess ). Is your point, however obtuse, as to a
suggested conclusion for ICANN to take your childhood experience
as a metaphor of guidance as to a particular standard of operation
and/or correction?
Hugh Dierker wrote:
>
> George, I believe I followed you. But I am afraid my computer only
reflects the numbers. It does not provide me with how you reach your
conclusion that this is malfeasance or evidence of incompetence.I am
also looking to find a way that makes it material. Your guidance is
appreciated. (I once told an English teacher that my homework was:
eaten by a dog, right after I was hit by the car as I crawled out of
rizing runoff creek, my brother had pushed me into. The homework was
on Samuels so she gave me an A for mimicking the style so well. Point
is that perhaps the reason for the missing stats, is just as good for
ICANN, as a column of numbers)
--- On Tue, 4/14/09, George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ga] Did a dog eat dot-cat's homework?
To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 10:51 AM
Hi folks,
According to Section III.1.c.iv of the dot-cat registry agreement:
http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/cat/cat-agreement-23sep05.htm
"Monthly Reporting. Within 20 days following the end of each calendar
month, Registry shall prepare and deliver to ICANN a report providing
such data
and in the format specified in Appendix 4. ICANN may audit Registry's
books
and records relating to data contained in monthly reports from time to
time upon
reasonable advance written notice, provided that such audits shall not
exceed
one per quarter. Any such audit shall be at ICANN's cost, unless such
audit
shall reflect a material discrepancy or discrepancies in the data
provided by
Registry. In the latter event, Registry shall reimburse ICANN for all
costs and
expenses associated with such audit, which reimbursement shall be paid
together
with the next Registry-Level Fee payment due following the date of
transmittal
of the cost statement for such audit."
These monthly reports can be found at:
http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/monthly-reports/
and in particular I draw your attention to the November and December 2008
dot-cat reports at:
http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/monthly-reports/cat/puntcat-200811.pdf
http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/monthly-reports/cat/puntcat-200812.pdf
which are archived at:
http://www.loffs.com/images/dotcat/
in the event the originals should change. According to Appendix 4 of the
agreement, the registry operator must report the total number of domains
to
ICANN (see field #3 in section 8) on a registrar by registrar basis.
Yet, for some unknown reason, the December 2008 report for dot-cat is
missing
that column entirely! It's present in the November 2008 report (see page
7,
where there are a grand total of 32833 domains across all registrars).
Did the
dot-cat registry operator even check the numbers they were submitting to
ICANN?
Did ICANN even bother to check what was submitted to them for compliance
with
the registry operator's contractual obligations? Perhaps a dog ate their
homework? I trust that this apparent material discrepancy will lead to
an audit
to determine the true numbers, and be reimbursed by the registry
operator.
This is a sign that ICANN is not even capable of managing the existing
gTLDs
properly, let alone managing any expanded obligations if new gTLDs were
to be
added to the root.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
http://www.leap.com/
>
Regards,
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
Abraham Lincoln
"YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama
"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
My Phone: 214-244-4827
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|