On 23 July 2010 11:26, Bob Bruen <naralo@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Volker (and Michele),
During our debate on CircleID, Jothan Frakes suggested that KnujOn meet with the registrars. I thought this was a good idea and proposed it to Mason Cole of the Registrar Constituency. Some registrars told him they were unwilling to have me come to the upcoming meeting in Cartagena, because we appear to be too combative. It appears to me that you and Michele are not afraid of intense debate (Michele once spoke out at a presentation I gave at RIPE).
Are you willing to try to change Mason's position, so that I can make an appearance at the RC meeting - open to any questions, complaints, etc?
The objective is to start a serious dialogue between KnujOn and the registrars, beyond the current debate.
I support this and am prepared to ask ALAC to formally endorse this request. You never progress peace by refusing to talk. I myself am not likely on Mr. Cole's Christmas card list; we have already had ... issues ... regarding ICANN's closed regional meetings. I am personally dismayed at ICANN support staff playing the role of registrar spokesperson and gatekeeper; unless ICANN wants to remain to be seen by the public as a trade association for registrars, such coziness between support staff and constituents should really be discouraged. But I digress... As I asked before... I have seen the claims saying that Knujon's methods are sloppy. In this exchange between Volker and Garth I have seen some instances of mis-communications and different interpretations, but zero sloppiness. A meeting would help to reduce the mis-communications, and should provide useful feedback to Garth on how to avoid inadvertently listing registrars who are doing what they should. I note that in one case mentioned there is a distinction made between "letter of the law" (adhering to the absolute wording of the contract) while clearly violating the "spirit of the law" (the behavior the contract is trying the enforce/prevent). This indeed is appropriate in the case of a registrar who has the information on their website but puts it in a place that's very difficult to find (ie, five levels down in the website and/or marked just by an icon with no description). Volker, in those cases I believe that these instances *are* fair game for Garth's attention. If the obfuscation of the contact information is accidental, the registrar can easily correct the situation. If the registrar is made aware of this but ignores it, that registrar *does* deserve to be pointed out. In this case it should be clear that the bad activity is technically within the contact but still bad behavior as a matter of opinion. And Volker, I think you'll agree that expressing an opinion that may be detrimental to a company, if made in good faith (and by someone with zero stake in the company's success or failure) is rarely actionable. This is especially so if the opinion is based on documented and consistent policies. OTOH, I may be siding with Volker on one point of interpretation. I don't expect a personal email response from Google on every possible customer service question that may arise, especially if there's an easily-findable answer on their site. Same with Amazon (except on the specific status of my own transactions with them). Or many other sites. This is the whole point of sites having FAQ areas. Many companies use their websites to provide information that reduces the burden of public-facing support staff. While "how much personal customer service to provide" is a business decision, handling most customer service on the website is IMO a legitimate option. IFF <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if> a registrar makes their (accurate) WHOIS access information easily available on their website (from a clearly labeled top level menu choice or an FAQ entry) then it may be unnecessarily severe to downgrade them for not personally answering questions that are already (clearly) answered. Individual email service need not be a requirement of good behaviour if the information is easily accessible on the company's site. I say that from the perspective of a small business owner who doesn't have substantial resources. I create a website FAQ section to avoid/reduce individual queries on significant issues. While such a policy may not be as comfortable as someone might want, it is IMO a reasonable approach that should be sufficient (should be clear and accurate) for being seen as a "good player". Considering the confrontational state that exists between Knojon and many registrars, it may even be understandable why some choose not to answer Knujon requests/surveys. However, if these site provide sufficient, accurate and clear information on their websites, they should not be penalised for not providing answers on the same issue by private mail. Just my opinion. - Evan