DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

At 05:21 PM 4/9/2001 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 06:47:44PM -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> > incumbent); and [3] anyway, it could be worse -- after all, if the gTLD
> > constituency had more votes, the resulting structure would be even *more*
> > anticompetitive.
>Jeez.  What an absolutely silly and ridiculous distortion.  The gTLD
>constituency is __14%__ of the NC, for petes sake.  By any measure that
>is a small minority, and it is just silly to claim that the behavior of
>such a small minority is going to make the "resulting structure"
>I have my complaints about NSI as well, but it really looks to me like
>people have let their emotions completely destroy their reason.

         I'm surprised at your vituperative response, Kent.  Back when the 
DNSO constituencies were formed, as you remember, ICANN paid great 
attention to the makeup and structure of each constituency.  The Board 
directed that it would recognize the various constituencies only 
provisionally, while staff worked with the organizers of each to ensure 
that their makeup and structure were open, fair, inclusive and 
procompetitive.  Nobody suggested then that ICANN should ignore such issues 
with respect to a given constituency on the ground that that constituency's 
representatives were only "14% of the NC, for petes sake."  Had anyone made 
such a suggestion at the time, it would have been viewed as, well, 
silly.  At the time, ICANN took the position that the gTLD constituency had 
only one member -- NSI.  Now that that constituency is being expanded, it's 
apppropriate to subject its makeup and structure to the same scrutiny that 
every other constituency got.

         (I'm also confused by your reference to NSI; it doesn't strike me 
that this is about NSI.  NSI's position within the "new" gTLD constituency 
will be determined by constituency rules yet to be determined (will all 
registries have an equal vote within the constituency? will they have votes 
weighted by their size?  if the latter, will there be a cap? etc.).  If I 
had to make a prediction, I'd guess that, entirely aside from the question 
whether the gTLD constituency should include prospective registries, those 
rules will end up ensuring that NSI will  have the practical ability to 
name exactly one NC representative of its own -- same as now.)


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 >>>