DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

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

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