Sounds like a make work project. ICANN's Transfer Task Force this and Names Council that. Frankly Ross I don't think it looks good on getting these recommendations. You worked hard for the some form of transfer sanity - but in the end let us never forget that ICANN is ultimatly a multi level marketing empire run by technicians to provide cover to the U.S. government who they have by the balls.
and reform don't work in that type of environment. now if two cows were to put .moo online and place it in inclusive namespace - we'll then we'll be rocking. What ever happened to .moo anyway? It's available ... http://www.dot-god.com/cgi-bin/whoisd/whois.cgi?name=moo so is moo.god http://www.dot-god.com/cgi-bin/whoisd/whois.cgi?name=moo.god i'll give you moo.god if you give me baptista.moo ;) regards joe baptista On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Ross Wm. Rader wrote: > A couple of you have asked me over the last few days where we are at on the > transfers issue...some of this is official, some of it isn't, all of it > should help you understand what the lay of the transfers land looks like... > > At the end of November, ICANN's Transfer Task Force forwarded 29 > recommendations[1] to the Names Council describing how ICANN's policies > surrounding transfers could be modified in a positive manner. The intention > of these recommendations was to increase the security, transparency and > stability of these types of transactions. As a participant in this task > force representing registrars, I fully believe that these recommendations > fulfill that goal. > > Currently, ICANN's Names Council is analysing the feasibility of these > recommendations. Tucows analysis[2] has been submitted to the Transfers > Implementation Analsysis Committee as have the comments of other parties[3] > > At the end of this month, this committee will be forwarding its final > analysis to the Names Council for their consideration. If the > recommendations are deemed feasible and implementable by the Council, they > will be forwarded to the ICANN Board who may vote to accept them as > consensus policy recommendations to be implemented in the operating > contracts. > > This could all happen as early as March. > > Tucows has mixed feelings concerning how realistic it is to expect positive > change as a result of these recommendations. There are factions that have > chosen to oppose the development of this policy since day one. They may > choose to continue their opposition through these final stages towards > adoption - which at the very least, could make things difficult. > > In the meantime, we are working towards our own interim implementations and > some new processes that may make it easier to deal with registrars like > Verisign, TotalNIC and other registrars that have chosen to make it > difficult for their registrants to leave them for other registrars. This > won't make up for efficient and predictable practices that are universally > adopted throughout the industry, but it might make things easier for your > customers over the short-term. > > I wish I had some more specific, more upbeat news - especially after working > on this issue for almost two years. The important thing is that we are > getting close. I will try and post another update in a couple of weeks to > let you know how the feasibility analysis went. Also, keep an eye out for > announcements from our operations groups (sales, etc) describing any new > transfers related processes that might fall out of our current internal > discussions/development... > > Questions, comments, as always, welcomed. > > > -rwr > > [1] > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021212.NCTransferTF-gaining-and-losing-regi > strars.html > [2] http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-imp/Arc00/msg00020.html > [3] http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-imp/Arc00/ > > > > "...the current generation of users and system designers has grown up > hobbled by implicit assumptions that frustrate simplicity. The real essence > of the Internet is simplicity. We must be aware of the implicit assumptions > that are subverting this simplicity so we can start removing the perverse > interactions." - Bob Frankston > > Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog/ >
