hello stef...
your answers to some of the questions below were not very clear.
1. are you saying that you don't have a position on a code of ethics for
registrars
2. rather than coming back to me with questions... are you reluctant to
state your personal position on the question of registrar accreditation ?
3. i take your answer to the last question to mean that you feel it is up to
the registry to decide what information to provide. is that correct ?. does
that mean that if a registry also acts as a registrar that they could elect
not to provide appropriate data to assure "portability". are you telling me
that information collected by registries in this circumstance is a form of
"customer list" ? (funny.. i would have assumed that this data was not
proprietary to the registry)
a point of elaboration here ... the comments regarding item number 3 are
related only to GTLD's and future GTLD's and do not necessarily have
application with CCtld's
best wishes
ken
-----Original Message-----
From: Einar Stefferud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Becky Burr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Esther Dyson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mike Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, February 16, 1999 1:59 AM
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Central Authority
>Hi Ken -- Your questrions need some additonal context before the
> answers can make any sense..
>
>Are we talking about registrars for only registries that are monoplies
>like NSI, or totally shared registeries ala CORE, or all registries
>including all ccTLDs and new gTLDs?
>
>Will all TLD registries be required to operate as shared registries
>the same way that NSI is required, or the way POC/PAB/CORE plans to
>operate shared registries?
>
>Are you going to propote one size fits all for all rgions, segments
>and nations?
>
>If not, what do you have in mind?
>
>>From your message Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:56:41 -0500:
>}
>}
>}-----Original Message-----
>}From: Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>}To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>}Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Becky Burr
>}<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>}<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>}<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>}<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Esther Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mike
Roberts
>}<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>}Date: Monday, February 15, 1999 1:41 PM
>}Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Central Authority is be Dangerous
>}
>}
>}hello jay:
>}
>}i would appreciate some further elightenment in light of your comments
>}below:
>}
>}1.who do you believe has the "rights" to access to the IP data ? what is
>}your definition of "IPdata" ?
>
>
>}2.who do believe should be accrediting registrars and the development of
>}mechanisms to insure that they operate in "the best interest of the
>}internet" ?
>
>Who indeed Ken? Do you believe that every registrar must be
>accredited. Does this include all ISPs that bundle registrar services
>into their service packages? Are customers going to be releieved of
>all needs to demand that their registrars acti in the interests of
>their customers? If yes, how are you gong to enforce your standards
>of service? Who is going to pay for the enforcement system?
>
>}3.should we have have a code of conduct for registrars ?
>}
>
>I gather that you assume the answer is yes? Why do you assume this?
>
>}4.how do you feel we should insure that there is equity in situations
where
>}the registry also competes at the registrar level ?
>
>What is wrong with volumen discount plans for Registrars?
>
>}5.how do we insure "portability" so that domain name holders are assured
>}that they will be provided adequate information on alternatives available
to
>}them for future registration servicing ?
>
>Why is this such a hard problem. Why cannot this be left as a
>prioduct differenctiation feature for registrars? Why does all this
>control have to be imposed from the top?
>
>}
>}best wishes
>}
>}ken stubbs
>}
>
>Just checking;-)...\Stef
>
>}
>}>ICANN has greatly exceeded its mandate to deal with the
>}>NSI monopoly. It appears to have established an entire
>}>business model for all ICANN registrars, one that makes
>}>ICANN the owner of all IP data, and assesses a tax on
>}>all registrants without *any* checks and balances.
>}>
>}>Respectfully,
>}>
>}>Jay Fenello
>}>President, Iperdome, Inc.
>}>404-943-0524 http://www.iperdome.com
>}>
>}>
>}
>
