Hello Joe,
Sunday, December 10, 2000, 1:05:45 PM, you wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, William X. Walsh wrote:
>> Hello dnsadmin,
>>
>> Sunday, December 10, 2000, 11:44:27 AM, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Just a note. ICANN is required to listen to the majority, is it not? In
>> > this case, can't we round up all RSP's and have a large voice if we present
>> > our views to ICANN?
>>
>> ICANN won't even create a constituency for individual domain name
>> holders. And ICANN couldn't make such a change as you are proposing
>> without the approval of the US Dept. of Commerce.
> I disagree. Clearly your point is correct - ICANN descriminates agains
> those who count - i.e. domain holders - etc. etc. However that does not
> discount the power a group of RSP would have to make their needs known to
> ICANN.
You know better than that, Joe. Of course you carefully worded your
message above, note that no where does Joe say that a group of such
RSPs would stand a chance of getting ICANN do to anything, just that
they would succeed in making their "needs" (more like wants) known.
> They would in fact be a very powerful force to be recokned with. I
> support this call to action and hope you will too.
I don't support the goal of the effort. It throws out of balance the
wise decision OpenSRS made to balance the rights of domain name
holders with those of RSPs concerned about fraudulent chargebacks.
If NSI cannot reclaim unpaid domains for auction, RSPs should not be
permitted to take ownership of domains either. This is a wise policy.
I support it remaining as is.
--
Best regards,
William mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
