Jeff:
I am interested in exercizing a scenario, not in questioning the scenario. So, if you
can add any
comment to the proposed scenario, please do. Otherwise, your silence will be most
positively
noted. Further, I am breaking the long Cc list you inserted and I am keeping this
discussion only
to the lists.
Let me reinstate the issues, where I ask for the list's comments. This is a focused
thread on a
specific problem, which is given by the following declaration from Phill Howard on a
problem
reported by Troy Davis:
-------------------- begin copy ----------------------------
"[NSI] only needs to know that they are dealing with a continuous chain of authority
over the domain, or identify where that chain broke."
But, how do you view this in terms of the coming Shared Registry? I would like to
have your (and the list's) input on this -- which is everyone's next future. Let me
recall the stage around which we spin here, under the current 2-party thin-registry
model being implemented by ICANN.
As we all know, NSI will cease to exist as the sole .com/.org./.net/.edu
Registry/Registrar (ie, the NSI/InterNIC) and we will have two entities: one
NSI-Registry (already announced as www.nsiregistry.com) plus one NSI-Registrar (the
internic.net to nsi.com changeover). At the same time, ICANN is selecting other
competing Registrars that will share that Registry -- specifically defining that the
Registrar is the one that owns the authority over the domain to the Registry, NOT
the Registrant. Further, the NSI-Registry will only deal with the Registrars and
never with any Registrant.
Thus, in this scenario, since "Joe Blow" is the Registrant -- NSI-Registry does not
deal with Joe Blow and NSI-Registry has no way of verifying if that "Joe Blow" is
even the same "Joe Blow". This means that NSI-Registry has no power and thus no
liability here. The Registrar would have, but different Registrars may follow
different rules -- in fact, the same Registrar may even have different contractual
duties and liabilities for their Registrants. And, legally, the only entity that
can mandate similar rules to Registrars is ICANN --- since they are the *only* ones
that may choose and supervise the Registrars, not NSI. However, ICANN can only
enforce what lies within its jurisdiction -- as a California Corporation.
Comments?
------------------------------ end copy ----------------------
However, let me just clarify some items in Jeff's latest posting.
Jeff Williams wrote:
> Ahhhh, I see the flaw in your argument or thinking here more clearly now. It
> is NOT true that NSI will cease to exist as sole REGISTRY. They will,
> however cease to exist as sole Registrar.
Never said that. Please read above. NSI will cease to exist as the sole
Registry/Registrar and
will become one NSI-Registry plus one NSI-Registrar together with other competing
Registrars that
will share that (ie, that sole one) Registry. Which is in violent agreement with what
you wrote
above -- so, next time please just say what you do not understand.
> As you may or may not know, a verbal condition or contract is NOT legally
> binding... Hence you example here as it relates to my original comment,
> in not relevant.
You are unfortunately mistaken -- even though that issue was not mentioned in my
message. In
order to apply tort law to fraud, I however did mention that reliance doctrines are
not harmonized
even within the US -- a fact of law for which I supplied a reference that leads to a
recent study
from the US Supreme Court, and which needs to be taken into account since ICANN is
located in CA
but a Registrar may be located in Delaware or even Moldavia. So different Registrars
may *have* to
follow different reliance doctrines, not to mention laws.
Now, into your comment, just think of an auction -- where even a gesture is legally
binding and
can cost you much money...without any word being spoken.
Cheers,
Ed Gerck
_________________________________________________________________________
Dr.rer.nat. E. Gerck
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
