Re: [ga] Karl's comments at the 2003 Senate hearings on allocation systems

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chris and all former DNSO GA members or other interested stakeholders/users,

>From my and our members perspective, if a registry fails or is about
to fail, ICANN itself should take over the operation if they are indeed
so worried and concerned about the registrants registrations.  However
as ICANN doesn't have the ability to do this or may not ever have,
than letting the chips fall where they may, as Karl has suggested is
the only remaining alternative.  So I cannot see arguing over determining
a policy that cannot be implemented or informed for registry failure.

I am fairly sure the ICANN Bod and staffs thoughts are along the
lines that Verisign with their vast experience in running a registry,
would be called in to take over temporarily for any failing
of failed registry operator.  As ICANN now has kissed and made
up with Verisign, this would seem logical, but time changes everything,
and such a subcontracted plan would be subject to many unforeseen
problems..

kidsearch wrote:

> I agree danny. a policy for when, not if, a registry fails, is necessary.
> But reviews of business plans beforehand are not and are an invasion of
> privacy.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> "Karl Auerbach" <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Danny Younger"
> <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>; <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 9:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Karl's comments at the 2003 Senate hearings on allocation
> systems
>
> > Re:  "If a TLD fails, why should ICANN do anything
> > about it?"
> >
> > ICANN Board member Mike Palage, in his Registry
> > Failure White Paper writes:
> >
> > "One of the important aspects to be considered in
> > connection with a gTLD registry failure is in the
> > impact on Internet stakeholders, most importantly
> > domain name registrants
> > within that TLD. Article 1 of the ICANN bylaws clearly
> > establish it's role as a technical coordinating body,
> > and not a consumer protection agency.  Notwithstanding
> > these limitations, there are times in which policy
> > development reasonably and appropriately
> > related to these technical functions can intersect
> > with consumer protection, i.e. redemption grace
> > period, UDRP, etc."
> > http://forum.icann.org/lists/new-gtld-questions/pdfD95Qf6rJO1.pdf
> >
> > One of the goals laid out in the White Paper was to
> > "provide accountability to and protection for the
> > international Internet community".
> >
> > I believe that ICANN, in its limited technical role,
> > can and should as a matter of policy offer protections
> > whenever possible.  It already extends protections to
> > trademark holders, it is contemplating additional
> > protections for IGOs, and has already provided the
> > basis for certain protections for registrants by way
> > of escrow provisioning requirements and domain
> > portability policies.
> >
> > I agree with the DOC and the ICANN Board that a
> > registry failure constitutes a stability issue.
> > Having a registry failover program in place occasions
> > no harm.  It is prudent.
> >
> >
> > --- sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > > <snip>
> > > > On the other hand, I'm not willing to take the
> > > > cavalier attitude that if a registry fails it's
> > > not a
> > > > big deal (as invariably it's the registrants that
> > > will
> > > > be affected).
> > >
> > > Why not?! Are you a Communist or something?!
> > > (sarcasm intended)
> > >
> > > >
> > > > That said, I would be comfortable passing on the
> > > > business plan examination if I has assurances that
> > > > ICANN had developed a registry failover program.
> > > >
> > > > My policy recommendation:  To expedite the launch
> > > of
> > > > new gTLDs ICANN should eliminate registry
> > > financial
> > > > considerations as a selection criterion; to
> > > safeguard
> > > > the public interest ICANN should create a registry
> > > > failover program.
> > >
> > > And what end would this failover program serve
> > > exactly?  If a TLD fails,
> > > why should ICANN do anything about it?  Why don't we
> > > just let the market
> > > decide, as Karl and Co. are proposing, and let the
> > > chips fall where they
> > > may? Or, Danny, do you mean that you want your cake
> > > but you want to eat it
> > > as well?
> > >
> > > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > > ---
> > >
> > > I was from Connecticut, whose Constitution declares
> > > "that all political
> > > power is inherent in the people, and all free
> > > governments are founded on
> > > their authority and instituted for their benefit;
> > > and that they have AT
> > > ALL TIMES an undeniable and indefeasible right to
> > > ALTER THEIR FORM OF
> > > GOVERNMENT in such a manner as they may think
> > > expedient.
> > >      --- A Connecticut Yankee by Twain, Mark
> > >
> > >
> >

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"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
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827