DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

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 [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"
> >anticompetitive.
> >[snip]
> >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.)
> Jon
> --
> 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

		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
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 ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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