[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: Fwd: Recovery of dominions From: amedinagomez@gmail.com Jose Luis I want to emphasize your work in relation to these subjects that are of general interest and which they turn out to be in some very sensible cases stops Users, Industralists and Citizens in general.La Colombian Association of Users of Internet offer their mediation to participate in this group of work, in the intention to obtain results that benefit to users. I want to make emphasis in the necessity and urgency to inform a opportunely the community on the actors and factors that are part of these processes of registry and that must be of ample knowledge. Who wishes toregister dominion must have precise information on a that to go of a way reliable and that offers precise information him at the momentthat therefore require. And very important that the intermediation is avoidedor that who ask for the registry of a dominion, in this process is clear to name of who becomes. The third a those that in some cases are gone to the moment to ask for a registry, they stay as "proprietors" of a dominion name that he is not his, that belongs to the applicant and is indeed in this point in where problems can be presented/displayed on the rights of a name registered. I want to insist on that contracts or agreements must exist on commercialization, which must be known and that is published in sites Web this information. This must be a serious process, is transparent and reliable for the users. Finally it is the point of the information of the related drug dealer with its data of contact like Name of the organization, direction, city, telephone, electronic mails. A data base is due to have publishes on the quality of these companies and the time of activity. I am kind to its commentaries Antonio Medina The 10 of September of 2009 00:22, Fatima Cambronero < fatimacambronero@gmail.com > wrote:
In name of Jose Francisco Arce and Fátima Cambronero: > > Thank you very much Jose Barzallo by this contribution that serves us to all > members of the list to understand a little more on the subject and > to excite to us by such. > > Now, by questions of lack of time, we come to contribute few > commentaries adding us to the expressed thing by Jose, that we thought that they can to us > to serve all, specially to the users of Internet and to those who > has > that to guard by its interests. > > Van the interlineados commentaries. > > > > 2009/9/9 Jose Luis Barzallo <joseluis@barzallo.com> > > > Dear companions ALS and ALAC > > > > Revise' the documents related to the recovery of names of > > dominion in an additional or special term. I send east summary to him stops > > to facilitate its participation. > > > > the essential questions turns around > > > > - if he is feasible to make these changes? > > - If they are necessary? > > - As must ! be the changes to implement itself? > > - As the changes must be implemented? > > > > > > For the users the recovery of the dominion names is > > advisable in as much as soon as goes in its benefit and the participation > of > > GNSO in the valid and necessary analysis in. > > > > > > Hay to remember that there is a ALAC order so that the GNSO is pronounced ( > > http://gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05de... >). > the representatives of the users are those that must be pending of > that > this is fulfilled. > > > > > That is to say, the recommendations would have to go towards obtaining a total > > transparency in the notification to registrantes the respect to the date > of > > completion of the period of registry to avoid possible frauds or > > manipulation of the warning. > > > > > > In this is in where there is no a consensus policy and therefore no > binding for all the Recorders. Each one ! is handled by > agreements > that has signed with ICANN and is! no a so lution uniforms that it applies stops > all equal ones. Some notify through the page Web (is insisted on > that is in a visible place; others through a mail (the doubtarises > respect to which has transferred the name of dominion with > anteriority and therefore the mail that is registered is theone of the previous one > to title, and therefore the present one, would not be being been notifying, or at least no > with fehaciencia and certainty). There is no a form "is transparent", > fehaciente > and safe that it is being used of notification. In this point it would have > to obtain a binding consensus and therefore, for all > Recording. > > > > > Is fundamental that the burden of proof always has the Recorder > and > > that this must justify the opportune warning that occurred, this way > > will have a greater security respect to which happens to the dominion of > > usuary. > > > > the retention during a special period must be obligatory for all > > t! he recorders and always must count very on clear policies and > > public for knowledge of the users. A specific warning respect > of > > operation would be appropriate. > > > > > > options have been tried on this, like prohibiting the transference of > dominion name while it is in period of retention (that of step, each > recording establishes the term of.redemption that wants, since with respect to > it is no a political uniform either), but this option was criticized and > stopped being "obligatory" to happen to handle it each voluntarily > Recording. > > > > > > the cost does not have to be superior or low no concept to duplicate the original one > > paid by the user. The recorder can retain the dominion during > > limited additional period, soon of which it will be able to put a value to him > superior > > not being part of its responsibility. > > > > > > the Recorder * would have * to retain the dominion during alimited period, > but that is ! a uniform term, of public binding knowledge andstops > all the! Recorde rs. With respect to the cost, after won said > period and not recovered by its holder original (or at issue) would have > to handle itself like a new dominion and with the same costof acquiring a dominion > new, without no original value. This would allow a treatment equality > stops > all the registrantes and/or users. > > > > > > > is not due to accept the transferences between companies or organizations > > related because they would enter doubtful situations respect to his > origin. > > > > > If a policy of consensus for all the Recorders existed by > equal, with uniform terms, would not exist any conflict in > transferences between related companies or organizations orno, > would eliminate many possibilities of fraud or in damage ofthird > other people's. > > > > the vision that has the association of the end users of Internet, that > is consuming of Dominions, and in special with respect to the recovery > of the expired dominions, begins with the preoccupat! ion of the lack of > information of the users of how it is the chain of distribution of > Dominions; that is to say, the recorders exist and after them there is one > series > of companies that they resell such, and these companies abound and it is created > > that is called "* the secondary market of dominions" or aftermarket *, this > produces in the users a true confusion; added to that many of > they administer several dominions and they cannot remember the victory of > all, although exists some tools to obtain it. This added a > that > at the time of wanting to transfer some dominion the recorder must, in > some > cases of granting to the End user a code to him, which several companies are > obstinate to do it. The subject at the time of dealing withdominions worsens that > tries to be sold in 1.4 million dollars, in where the interests in > game does not allow mistakes, nor double interpretations. > > Creemos that is necessary to debate these questions and to help use! rs a > to understand as is the alternatives of the ways that g! TLD cros ses from > ICANN until the user acquires the same one. > > Our work is branched off here in two. One towards ALAC informing to him > vision of the end user of the Region and another one towards the end users > in giving them to the tools and basic information so that it can > to develop > in freedom. > > From the association, with Fátima Cambronero, both of Ageia Densi Argentina, > we are in process of processing of a more extensive document to spread > these knowledge to the different users and so that they have > information in a single document and several languages, anddoes not have > to digress in pages and forums in search of an answer. The same one will favor a > the actors of the region to animate itself to touch these subjects and to debate in > depth such to the aims of being able to raise ALAC a knowledge to him > certain of the necessities of the subjects in debate and ideas and contributions that > goes > directed to favor the user. > > Greetings to All > > > > ! Jose F. Arce Fátima Cambronero > > http://ar.ageiadensi.org/ > http://ar.ageiadensi.org/ > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-is mailing list > lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es_atlarge-lists... > > http://www.lacralo.org >
[[--Original text (es) http://mm2.icann.org/transbot_archive/310e477d27.html --]]