Re: [ga] A Policy Discussion

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Danny and all,

  Agreed.  We have been saying how poorly ICANN and
the GNSO has been in determining and following through
on almost all policy matters sense ICANN was only
a concept and the DNSO was formed/created.

The ugly saga of ICANN continues...

Danny Younger wrote:

> It has gotten to the point that I can no longer trust
> the GNSO to responsibly manage DNS policy matters.
>
> Let's consider the general state of long-standing
> ICANN Consensus Policies:
>
> 1.  The UDRP -- still in need of a major overhaul
>
> 2.  The WHOIS Data Reminder Policy -- no empirical
> evidence that this policy is achieving the goal of
> improving contact detail accuracy
>
> 3.  The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy -- unlike the
> auDA policy that states:  "The losing registrar must
> not impose a transfer fee on the registrant, or any
> fee that could reasonably be construed as a transfer
> fee", ICANN registrars have imposed significant
> transfer-away fees that defeat the aim of facile
> domain name portability.
>
> 4.  The Whois Marketing Restriction Policy -- No
> evidence that compliance with registrars' access
> agreements has ever been monitored
>
> 5.  The Restored Names Accuracy Policy -- on how many
> occasions has the submission of false contact data
> actually resulted in names being placed in registrar
> hold status?
>
> 6.  The Expired Domain Deletion Policy -- circumvented
> by almost every registrar via their Terms of Service
> language
>
> Of course, there are other policies in addition to the
> above that require work:
>
> 1.  The Add Grace policy that promotes typosquatting
> at epidemic levels
>
> 2.  The Redemption Grace Period policy that still
> denies registrants a competitive choice in the
> selection of a redeeming registrar and locks the
> unfortunate into fees that are extortionate in the
> extreme
>
> 3.  WHOIS policy (guided by a Task Force that chooses
> to ignore all public comments tendered instead of
> incorporating such comments to cure deficiencies in
> the WHOIS policy proposals that the TF has put forth).
>
> While there are many other policy areas that could be
> added to this list, it should be clear to most that
> established policies should never be treated as static
> elements.  There is a need to revisit policy choices
> to determine whether they are efficacious and to see
> whether improvements should be made.
>
> Yet when I consider the activities of the GNSO I am
> reminded of Nero who fiddled while Rome burned; I am
> not seeing a dedication to the GNSO's fundamental
> mission.
>
> At the end of the day it is the registrant community
> that is directly affected by ICANN policy outcomes.
> Common sense would dictate that registrants as
> impacted parties would have a place at the GNSO Table
> as a recognized constituency.  Sadly, common sense has
> never ruled the day within ICANN and poor policy will
> doubtless remain the norm.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
> with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail

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
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
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827