Re: [ga] Provider/User Balance

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

In response to Richard's remarks on the need for enforcement "teeth" and Vint's suggestion to float some ideas prior to moving the discussion to a PDP stage, I would begin by cautioning parties to this debate that "coercive" contract enforcement mechanisms are not the only options to consider.
 
Let us look at an extreme case highlighted by the recent hijacking of the panix.com domain.  It is certainly possible within the context of ICANN contracts to establish monetary penalties or sanctions such as a temporary loss of the ADD command privilege; on the other hand, non-coercive measures can also have a significant effect.  If, for example, it was widely reported that ICANN had concluded that a certain registrar breached their agreements and was tacitly responsible for a security lapse that resulted in a domain name hijacking, the public would assuredly choose to shun that registrar's service for a period of time.  That measure might be as effective as invoking financial penalties in order to obtain the desired results (protecting the security of the DNS).
 
It think it important that ICANN have at its discretion the right to employ non-coercive measures to secure contract enforcement if it believes that such measures may suffice to accomplish the goal of repairing a contract breech.  It would probably be wise to outline the range of coercive and non-coercive contract enforcement mechanisms available.  

		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.