Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency
The solution is obvious: prospective registries need to self-organize into
a new constituency and demand three votes on the names council.
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> 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  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 firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | firstname.lastname@example.org
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
-->It's warm here.<--
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html