To use an "Evanism", let me see if I get this straight. We believe we have a situation with "Post-expiry Domain Recovery by the original registrant" that undermines the interests of users; the registrants. The updated draft request document - a well-written tome, in my opinion! - gives chapter and verse, the background to the problem and the existing ICANN Registrar/Registry related policies that were intended to ameliorate said problem; the RGP and the AGP. It identifies the reason for the "repeated injuries and usurpations" experienced by registrants; the lack of contract enforcement by ICANN and the disability/disinclination of some registrants to access remedies via the UDRP. There is no acknowledgement that contracts between parties are well dissected in the tort law with remedies available in law and equity. So what is the ALAC recommending here? An issues report, the sum total of which cannot be more than to tell ICANN it went to sleep on its own contract enforcement! I say again: IMHO, the ALAC pronouncements around contracts of one or other kind tends to impairment on the applicability of tort laws to commercial transactions. So now, I dare to ask this: "What do we know and when did we know it?" Carlton Samuels -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 06:47 PM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] Draft of the Request for Issues Report A revised draft (based in comments received) is now posted on the wiki pointed to from the agenda of our Oct 14 meeting. Alan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac