Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Innovative Proposal - Jeff E response

[Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe@xxxxxxxxx>]

there is some problems in this level . This problem is not easy in some
african country understanding.

We don't know exactly registrar and registry legacy. Consumers don't konw
their right.

about audit, I think it will be better to have a good collaboration between
justice minister and other institution allowing consumer to complain.



SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN)

Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571
                          +243811980914
email:                   b.schombe@xxxxxxxxx
blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble   Royal, Entrée A,7e
niveau.


2010/4/15 Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>
> Ron,
>
> I have read your points below and believe it or not I think we may be
> moving along the same direction.
>
> You state that back when the registry misdeeds were happening there was no
> real oversight or compliance and they did not honor its duties and
> responsibilities. They were doing bad things that attempted to harm the
> consumer.
>
> Now, what if there was "contractual power"? What if there were audits and
> checks to review the actions of the registry and safeguards in place for
> consumers and penalties in place for the registry? Do you believe that the
> bad activities would have been curbed ?
>
> Or, were they such bad actors that no amount of sanctions would have
> stopped them?
>
>
> My point being that the MMA proposal and my proposal contain audits and
> checks and this is an area I would like to pursue to make sure consumers are
> not harmed while allowing cross ownership.
> One of the ways forward is for people with direct experience with these
> exploits and disgraceful actions to list them so we can protect against
> them.
>
> I just believe it is a more sensible way forward, then saying we need to
> build a moat or a wall around it.
>
>
> Jeff Eckhaus
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Ron Andruff
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 7:34 AM
> To: 'Michele Neylon :: Blacknight'; 'gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Innovative Proposal - Jeff E response
>
>
> In my view, Kathy makes a very persuasive argument.  Having launched a
> registry with the same noble intentions ["That's an exclusive and
> privileged
> position, and in our community, it includes duties and responsibilities."]
> I
> saw firsthand how those that took over management of that registry tried --
> and continue -- to exploit it in every possible manner solely for their own
> personal gain.  So that is one disgraceful and clear example of harm.
>
> If ICANN compliance had enough 'contractual power' today, that registry,
> IMHO, would have long ago been put up for re-delegation to a new operator
> that would indeed honor its duties and responsibilities to its community
> and
> ICANN.
>
> While some might dismiss PIR's comments as not showing tangible examples of
> harm, I and others are well-aware of how badly greedy actors can abuse
> data,
> registrants, and the very communities their TLDs are 'intended to serve'.
> Had VI been possible when the current operators took control, the damage
> that is being done (both to the affected community as well as to all those
> who believe in the institution of ICANN) would have been magnitudes worse
> than it is today.
>
> RA
>
> Ronald N. Andruff
> RNA Partners, Inc.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Michele Neylon :: Blacknight
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 9:36 AM
> To: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Innovative Proposal - Jeff E response
>
>
>
> On 15 Apr 2010, at 04:17, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>
> >
> > Among other forms of valuable domain name data, we have:
> > <snip>
>
> Milton's reply addresses this very comprehensively
>
>
>
> > Goals of a Registry: Security and Stability of the TLD and the Internet.
> >
> > Overall, I find the goals of the registries compelling: it is the
> > security and stability of their TLDs and the DNS space. That is the
> > passion and preoccupation of PIR, and the whole of the Registry
> > Constituency. In a comment to be filed by the Registry Constituency in
> > the DNS-Cert proceeding, due tomorrow, the Registry Constituency will
> > together submit:
> >
> > "TLD Registry Operators play a critical role in the secure and stable
> > operation of the DNS and we welcome the opportunity to discuss
> > initiatives to improve DNS security, stability, and resiliency.
> > Registries' infrastructures, personnel, expertise, technology,
> > investments, and operational practices have underpinned the secure and
> > stable  functioning of the Internet as it has scaled globally over the
> > past two decades.  Indeed, registries are on the "front lines" of
> > defense against a variety of security threats that occur on a daily
> > basis.  As such, registries have developed expertise in addressing a
> > broad range of threats.  Registries have successfully coordinated with
> > other actors in the DNS and Internet services spaces to address threats
> > ranging from simple operator errors to those caused by sophisticated bad
> > actors.  Registries look forward to consulting with ICANN on these
> > important issues and to engaging with other actors to further develop
> > these initiatives."
> >
> > We have a system of separations that works: Registries address the
> > security and stability of  their TLD and the Internet. Registrars work
> > with registrants - and find the boldest, most innovative ways to connect
> > people, organizations and business with the domain names and the domain
> > name services they need. The growth, the brilliance and dramatic changes
> > of the registrar field are extraordinary.
> >
> > But it was done within a DNS system of checks and balances and of
> > requirements for equal access, equal treatment, and equal information
> > (with a further separation of ownership to back it up). That too has
> > served us, and the Internet community, well. Thus, we strongly support
> > extending the system of structural separation to the new gTLDs.
>
>
> Sorry, but I can't see any answer in there at all.
>
> You (PIR) are saying that stability and security will be harmed. When asked
> how, you come back with nothing of any actual consequence that answers the
> question.
>
> You instead go on about how wonderful you all are and how much you care
> about "stuff".
>
> You don't actually show any clear examples of real, tangible, harm and how
> it could be done to anyone if the current status quo were changed.
>
> Regards
>
> Michele
>
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions
> Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
> ICANN Accredited Registrar
> http://www.blacknight.com/
> http://blog.blacknight.com/
> http://mneylon.tel
> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
> US: 213-233-1612
> UK: 0844 484 9361
> Locall: 1850 929 929
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
> -------------------------------
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>
>
>
>