Re: [ga] Verisign's NetSol's NextRegistrationRights and Snapnames
Richard and all former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,
Richard Henderson wrote:
> HelpMy concern is that ICANN - if it wanted to act responsibly -
> could build more precise safeguards into its agreements with
> registries, and construct a certain amount of enforcement by including
> sanctions for failure to adhere to those safeguards and the agreements
> themselves...
Yes Richard and this was discussed during the time when the Registry
and registrar contracts were being formulated, and we [INEGroup]
members proposed just exactly what you are suggesting here along
with specific language. Yet Joe Simms and Louis Touton at that
time did not listen for unknown reasons...
>
>
> Just as in the case of Afilias, ICANN (a) could have challenged the
> process proposed for checking Sunrise applications (b) could have
> challenged Afilias when it registered names and accepted applications
> which were in breach of the agreements (i.e. those applications which
> failed to submit data in the 4 mandatory Trademark datafields)... (c)
> could have set up grounds for intervention when the Landrush
> applicants were robbed of their right to a chance of thousands of
> names (which they had paid for through scores of ICANN-accredited
> registrars)...
>
> Of course, Afilias Director Robert Connelly resigned over what he
> called the "abomination" of the process, but ICANN could have
> pre-empted so many problems if it had written more precision and
> enforcement into its Agreements...
Also already repeatedly discussed at some length.
>
>
> In the case of Verisign, it seems apparent that they are now acting
> unilaterally on a number of fronts, and ICANN has failed to keep them
> in check, by allowing far too much flexibility in their agreements...
Well remember ICANN gave away .COM in a separate agreement for them
to agree to redeligated .ORG and in at some future date, .NET.
>
>
> ICANN's "Anything Goes" mentality - what Dan Halloran described as a
> "laissez faire" approach - has got us where we are, with Verisign etc
> doing what they want, and flying in the face of what many perceive to
> be appropriate...
Yes and again the lack of wisdom of the ICANN BoD and staff at that time
was frequently warned against, yet unheeded. I can only guess it was
for
the $$ that Verisign than parted with to ICANN.
>
>
> Governance does not mean intervening with every minute customer
> relations problem that crops up, but it should involve principles,
> responsibility for consequences, and pre-empting problems which can be
> pre-empted.
Of course this is and has always been a reasonable business axiom of
sorts.
>
>
> Power without responsibility... hmmm... who's really got the power
> behind ICANN... ask the 5000 ordinary Iraqi squaddies who were bombed
> out of existence by cowardly attacks from above, in the name of WMDs
> that don't seem to have existed anyway (Hans Blix)...
Well this is no only not factual it is also not a good
comparison/analogy.
>
>
> Power without responsibility means "Anything goes if I can get away
> with it"... it's Worldcom and Enron and the mentality of ICANN, and
> it's the banal world assumptions of the American regime...
Remember the ICANN BoD is international, not american. So
America bashing is also not factual in this instance Richard.
>
>
> And if you raise serious concerns and questions (as I have repeatedly
> raised them with Dan Halloran) then you just ignore them if you can
> get away with it... now nearly 500 days and *still* Dan Halloran
> maintains his contemptuous silence over my public and supported
> concerns about the NewTLDs...
Good point here Richard.
>
>
> As for Verisign, it seems like "Anything Goes"... ICANN ignored the
> concerns of its constituencies... and Verisign continues to drift
> towards its monopolistic origins, which ICANN purported to prevent...
>
> In the end, more and more people will look elsewhere for solutions,
> will root around the root, will turn to the UN or ITU, will ask the
> fundamental question:
>
> If the Internet exists to serve all the people of the world, and if it
> is used by all the people of the world, and if it is a resource which
> all the world contribute towards, then WHY does just one nation (US)
> lay claim to its governance, through its feckless quango ICANN?
Well the simple and factual short answer is that ICANN is not JUST
one nation claim to it's governance...
>
>
> It's time to internationalize the governance of the DNS and the
> Internet, and make ICANN or a better replacement answerable to an
> international authority rather than just one country.
ICANN already is and international configured organization.
>
>
> This is a serious viewpoint (and in democratic terms a cogent
> philosophical argument) which is being increasingly discussed in the
> world that actually exists beyond Marina del Rey.
>
> yrs,
>
> Richard H
>
>
>
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
Pierre Abelard
===============================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801