ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[ga-full]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] Re: [council] gTLD CONSTITUENCY

  • To: Danny Younger <webmaster@babybows.com>
  • Subject: [ga] Re: [council] gTLD CONSTITUENCY
  • From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
  • Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 22:53:52 -0700
  • CC: General Assembly of the DNSO <ga@dnso.org>
  • Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
  • References: <sace498a.010@gwia201.syr.edu> <3ACEA37B.33C1F781@ix.netcom.com> <3ACE89E3.5991B2B3@hi-tek.com>
  • Sender: owner-ga-full@dnso.org

Eric and all remaining assembly members,

  I agree that more inclusiveness with respect to the registry industry
to which Roger and Milton were referring to here is paramount.

  We now have New.Net, anlantic.net and other registries in operation
that are not "ICANN Accredited" but are indeed growing part of the
registry industry and ICANN needs to reach out to them else risk future
fragmentation of the Name space as well as Diminishing ICANN's 
presence and potentially suffer a breach of contract problem 
with DOC/NTIA in accordance with the DOC/NTIA due to excluding
"Interrupted Parties" to which the MoU and White Paper requires...

Eric Dierker wrote:

> I do not know how I recieved this but I dang sure read it, and it hurts with politcal correctness. For sure applicant and alternative netstyles are entitled, exclusiveness is bad medicine. Not to mention bad economics and bad politics, after all where is your base?
>
> Be inclusive as possible, please, we need more outreach not less!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Milton and all,
> >
> > Milton Mueller wrote:
> >
> > > Roger raised some valid points in his message below. A new registry constituency must have clear membership criteria. However, it is unfair to restrict membership in the gTLD constituency to those who are already licensed, as they would have strong incentives to limit competitive entry.
> >
> >   Agreed.  It is also unfair tot restrict any membership of the "Proposed"
> > constituency to ONLY ICANN accredited Registries as well.  That would
> > seem to be in violation of the MoU and the White Paper.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Fortunately, there is a simple way around this problem.
> > >
> > > The new registry constituency can consist of any organization that has officially applied to ICANN to become a registry.
> > >
> > > At this point in time, that means all those organizations that paid ICANN's $50,000 non-refundable application fee.
> > >
> > > This is a simple, clear criterion. No one can contend that those who applied are not seriously committed to ICANN and to the registry business.
> >
> >   I disagree here in part.  One could easily argue that the registry industry is not
> > exclusive to only ICANN Registries....
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --MM
> > >
> > > >>> "Cochetti, Roger" <RCochetti@verisign.com> 03/26/01 07:53 AM >>>
> > >
> > > 1) While there are quite a few proposals floating around for "registry industry trade associations" that would include any business that considers itself a registry, this Constituency is an ICANN DNSO constituency, whose principal purpose is to provide input into the ICANN DNSO process.  So, while the registry industry may well need and get a broad trade association, we did not feel that the " DNSO Constituency " was the venue for it; and
> > > 2) In order to provide some meaningful boundary for the DNSO Constituency, accreditation is a fairly clear demarcation;  beyond that, things get murky and fairly debatable; and
> > > 3) Whereas the commitment that an organization makes to express interest in becoming a gTLD registry is limited,  the commitment rises considerably
> > > after accreditation, ensuring the full commitment of the Constituency to the DNSO's work.
> > >
> > > ---
> > > You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: Jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1799I@lyris.isoc.org
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>