Re: [ifwp] RE: State of incorporation (was Problems)

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Joop and all,

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 05:42 PM 9/29/98 -0500, you wrote:
> >Christopher Ambler wrote:
> >>
> >> My main problem with the removal IV-1(e) is that it established a situation
> >> in which the ICANN could not make arbitrary decisions that harmed an
> >> existing property. Specifically, many new registries that have spent
> >> considerable time and money to establish infrastructure based upon
> >> urgings of IANA in the past.
> >
> >I think this is an academic issue since it was apparently removed by
> >IANA in its last draft, however I want you to know our thinking.
> >
> >Patrick O'Brien, CEO of DomaiNZ (my capitalization of NZ) expressed the
> >same concern in our discussion of this clause.  We are faced with a
> >situation in which there are thousands, if not millions of contracts and
> >other relationhips out there which will be affected by whatever the
> >corporation does.  We wanted to accomodate existing relationships, but
> >not tie the entity's hands or bog it down in procedures or litigation.
>
> Eric and all,
>
> Procedures are there to *prevent* litigation. Accommodating existing
> relationships, however reasonable, should not be constructed as a licence
> for existing registries to continue their high-handed and undemocratic ways
> of the past.

  Yes, and this has been beaten to death over the past several years now.It is our
opinion that this is one of the more important reasons that all of the
SO's directors must be approved or elected with a choice of candidates
by the membership Organization by Majority vote.  It is the Names
SO that should make or determine what policies and standards for
registries and registrars must adhear to.

> It is here that the NewCo has to regulate their behaviour to protect the
> Domain Name holders.
> Otherwise nothing changes.

  Exactly.  See my reasone and explination for our position above.

>
>
> >We also felt the clause might have unintended consequences and was
> >dangerous.  We concluded that the best protection will be having fairly
> >constituted SOs (which I would like to see called "councils" in the
> >final draft) in which all parties may be protected by the structure of
> >the organization.
> >
> Would this then disqualify SO's that quasi governmental or that are
> organised as clubs? With "councillors" only nominated and voted in office
> by a narrow membership rather than by all stakeholders in the registry?
>
> joop t
> http://www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/
>
> __________________________________________________
> To view the archive of this list, go to:
> http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp
>
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
> ___END____________________________________________

 Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com