Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 10:20:49PM -0400, 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.

I do get annoyed when people deliberately misrepresent my position, yes. 
Sorry about that. 

>  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.

Sorry, you are confused.  There was no requirement that each
constituency represent every possible perspective, and indeed the idea
is contrary to the whole notion of constituencies.  Constituencies are
*expected* to represent a particular point of view.  That a constituency
would have a particular interest is an expected result.  In particular,
the gTLD constituency is *intended* to support the interests of real
gTLD registries, the ones that ICANN really does have contractual
relationships with, precisely because these registries are in a special
relationship with ICANN.  There might possibly be a case for a separate
constituency for "prospective registries" (though I doubt it), but
current registries (both ccTLD and gTLD, in fact) are absolutely
critical special cases. 

> 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."

Indeed.  But your view of the constituency formation process is very far
from what actually transpired, and your above comment is disjoint from
that reality.  

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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