ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[domain-tasting-2008]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] ICANN Board can intervene to stop domain tasting for 1 year

  • To: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>, ICANN Domain name tasting <domain-tasting-2008@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN Board can intervene to stop domain tasting for 1 year
  • From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:36:37 -0800

George and all,

  Well lets hope that the Bod takes appropriate action ASAP.
I am not holding my breath that they will however...

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My Phone: 214-244-4827

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hi folks (especially lurking ICANN Board members),
>
> According to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, section 4.3.4:
>
> http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm
>
> "4.3.4 A specification or policy established by the ICANN Board of
> Directors on a temporary basis, without a prior recommendation by the
> council of an ICANN Supporting Organization, shall also be considered
> to be a Consensus Policy if adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors by
> a vote of at least two-thirds of its members, so long as the Board
> reasonably determines that immediate temporary establishment of a
> specification or policy on the subject is necessary to maintain the
> operational stability of Registrar Services, Registry Services, the
> DNS, or the Internet, and that the proposed specification or policy is
> as narrowly tailored as feasible to achieve those objectives."
>
> I believe with NSI's recent actions, one can argue that ICANN needs to
> step in to maintain the operational stability of Registrar Services. If
> NSI is permitted to continue their behaviour, other registrars will be
> compelled to do the same, monkey-see, monkey do. That would be
> instability, a disruptive change of registrar services from the status
> quo.
>
> To define it as narrowly as possible, one can simply make the
> policy/specification be that the ICANN fee is non-refundable even
> during the add-grace period. One can specify it is established for a
> period of 90 days, and renew it for up to a year. One needs a
> two-thirds majority of Board members to establish a temporary consensus
> policy in this manner. By the end of the year, the GNSO council would
> probably have a consensus policy via the PDP in the right direction, to
> support the temporary policy enacted by the Board.
>
> The time for inaction is over. As Vint might say, "Make it so."
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>