[meant to send this to the list and sent it only to robert] On 8-Nov-05, at 6:00 PM, Robert L Mathews wrote:
> elliot noss wrote: > > >> there are two big facts to note. first, the ICANN agreement is >> subject >> to the contract between registrar and registrant, which was quoted >> earlier in the thread. >> >> > > You're claiming you can modify the registrant agreement to avoid being > subject to ICANN consensus policies. That's utter nonsense. If > registrars can do that, the RAA is meaningless. > > > I am claiming that based upon my understanding of ICANN's position and based upon their (in)action in respect of other registrars I believe this is well within bounds. as for what it does to the RAA that is not my issue. I need to think about my customers, my customers' customers and my business. > > >> second, tucows is not the first (or the second or the third or the >> fourth or........) to rely on contractual terms as are being >> described. >> >> > > "Other registrars started violating their contracts first" is hardly a > legal defense. I expect those other registrars will be stopped. > > > > >> wishing for some idealized expiry process will not make it so. >> >> > > That's disingenuous; I'm sure you're aware that Verisign will probably > soon obtain ICANN approval to start an auction service at the registry > level that will end the practice of hammering the registry to get > dropping domain names, solving the unfair reallocation problem. > > What Verisign is proposing will not in any way change what registrars are doing with respect to dropping names. Verisign does not suggest that it will. > I'm going to speak plainly: What you're proposing (and what some other > registrars are engaging in) is domain theft; nothing more, nothing > less. > > ICANN consensus policy (as expressed in the EDDP) makes it clear that > domain names that aren't renewed must be deleted, not seized to > benefit > me or you. The current system of reallocating those domain names isn't > fair, but registry auctions, for example, can change that to give > nobody > a particular advantage based on the fact that they have tons of > registry > connections, or the fact that they were involved in a previous > transaction for that name. Your proposal doesn't make things more > fair; > it simply shifts the unfairness around to permanently benefit you, > even > if a fairer solution is eventually implemented at the registry. > > In a nutshell, your defense comes down to "if we don't rig the > system so > that we get the advantage, someone else will". That's repulsive. > > in the end your problem will not be with me but with the companies and individuals making millions (yes I said millions) every month. the way we propose to conduct ourselves will never be as lucrative as it is for others. those are the folks who will fight what you suggest tooth and nail (and who I do not believe verisign will take on). I respect your opinion and I disagree with it. that being said I would encourage you to participate in the ICANN process and make your position known. if you come to vancouver I will buy the beer and will also introduce you to the folks that you will want to influence. Regards Elliot Noss _______________________________________________ domains-gen mailing list [email protected] http://discuss.tucows.com/mailman/listinfo/domains-gen
