Re: [ga] Provider/User Balance

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

The concept of "Push-Pull" incentives has a long history in the international community. It fails in the regard of the omnipotence of the in locus parenti administering it. There are very good discussions of the concept for Pharmas at the UN. US uses it for land development and general public improvements. Pollution control is another area using the methodology.
 
But your theorizing here seems to gloss over the ghost registrar co's so numerous. The capture of this constituency has occured. It is not too late, but you are not dealing with a tadpole anymore, it has already morphed into a Frog, and one with warts at that.
 
If individuals were organized here then they could have the type of influence you look for here. If consumers are organized the can do the most direct push-pull incentives of anyone. "you violate public trust we boycott" "you do a good job we send our members and endorse you"
You do a really bad job we sue you. You do a really a good job write our representatives and media about how great you are"
This would also insulate ICANN SOs as they are today. If industry is sure that there is a check and balance on there machinations that is consumer base, then they can feel more free and confident in open and transparent dialogue. As long as they are dually charged to feed profit centers and protect the public they will be gaurded and not honest in their dealings.
 
A funny note; As a child I was a bit of a jackass at times. I also grew carrots in my familiy's garden and loved them fresh. As I was playing with my carrots and radishes and potatoes my older brother needed my help with pruning. I ignored him and was eating one of my monsterous carrots, he whipped it from my hand and clocked me over the head with it to get me back to work with pruning. Well that really hurt and that carrot was one hell of a stick.
 
Eric 

Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Sports -  Sign up for Fantasy Baseball.