Ed and all,
Ed Gerck wrote:
> 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.
I and we [INEGroup] believe as have some 90k folks, added significantly
in exercising this scenario, as you state it Ed. Part of doing that is
to observe and question the scenario itself as to the sum of it's parts.
I have re-added some of the interested parities to the CC list as they
have in the past expressed interest...
>
>
> 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:
I fully realize that this is a specific thread Ed. But thank you anyway for
restating that. >;)
>
>
> -------------------- 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
Let us truly clarify (Above) your comment/statement Ed, shall we?
A I stated, form above and you are stating incorrectly here, that,
" NSI will cease to exist as the sole Registry/Registrar", is factually
incorrectly stated, hence my correction for the purposes of clarity,
I stated, from above, "It is NOT true that NSI will cease to exist as
sole REGISTRY. They will, however cease to exist as sole Registrar."
Your comment/statement is in disagreement with what I stated. As such,
we have language here that is unnecessarily misleading or could be
misconstrued in a manner that it MAY not be intended, and hence, is
relevant to this thread for purposes of clarity and definition.
> 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.
I find that I did indeed understand completely, hence my restating for
purposes of clarity and proper evaluation my above statement in
comparison with yours, which as stated, is not accurate.
>
>
> > 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.
No it is not difinitivly mentioned, but none the less could be implied.
> 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.
Outside of the US this would indeed be correct. However inside the US
and in conjunction with existing Trade agreements and treaties, this statement
would be factually incorrect as we have already seen with the Mcdonnalds
case for instance.
>
>
> 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.
Certainly this is indeed possible, but less likely than the latter...
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ed Gerck
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Dr.rer.nat. E. Gerck
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
