Re: [ga] Danny's 10

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

John,
 
What external activities are being pursued in this important area of concern?
 
Who is funding the work being done on these possible colliding TLDs?
 
How do you register one with ICANN to see that the animals are kept in cages?
 
What RFCs are you working with?

--- On Tue, 12/8/09, John Palmer <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


From: John Palmer <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ga] Danny's 10
To: "Accountability Headquarters" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 10:09 AM





11. Preventing ICANN from stealing TLDs that others already operate.  Exsisting 
TLD operators should not have to 
pay extortion money to ICANN to keep from having the 900lb gorilla (i.e. 
listing of a colliding version of their TLD in
the USG root) from being dropped on their head.
 
This, in my opinion, should be the FIRST item on the list for this group. 
 
----- Original Message ----- 

From: Hugh Dierker 
To: Accountability Headquarters 
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:57 AM
Subject: [ga] Danny's 10






Sometimes participation here seems wasted. Sometimes participation here is 
required to keep this forum alive. One thing I promise,, anything done in GA 
does not stay here.
 
1.  we continue to have ongoing violations of inter-registrar transfer 
consensus policy by GoDadddy (through their 60-day lock upon WHOIS change) in 
spite of the April 2008 Advisory on the topic. 

1. continuing inter-registrar transfer violations 4/08 Advisory
2.  there is a need to establish a process to appoint an at-large director 

2. At-large director appointment - when and how
3.  there remains a need for ongoing discussion regarding the proposed URS 
take-down mechanism 

3. URS Takedown - right/wrong   how/when
4.  The UDRP has never been revised 

4. UDRP revisions - success & failure examples/proof
5.  The "open-the-floodgates" approach to new gTLDs is not a prudent policy 

5. gTLDs to limit/restrict or Laissez faire
6.  The ability of the Compliance Department to properly scale in light of a 
new TLD roll-out is at issue when they obviously can't manage their current 
responsibilities. 

6. Compliance Department or Not - effectiveness & management
7.  The EDDP requires registrars to post on their website the actual fees 
charged to registered name holders for recovering domain names that are in 
RGP.  Close to 500 registrars are in default of their obligations. 

7. EDDP & the RGP practical or superfluos
8.  We still have no registrants constituency in the GNSO 

8. Registrants representation
9.  The registry/registrar vertical integration discussion is far from 
concluded 

9. Monopolistic vertical registry to registrar models
10.  There is no GNSO-approved policy regarding proxy registrations. 

10. Lack of GNSO effective registration policy