Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency
At 12:01 PM 4/10/2001, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> > Let's be clear, however, that merely making an application does not mean
> > that the applicant has any experience as a registry. Some do, some
> > don't. So calling an applicant a registry, just because they have made an
> > application is really identical to calling someone a citizen just because
> > they applied for citizenship.
>If they're not qualified, they should have been turned down by ICANN.
You take a less constructive position than did the ICANN board. You also
seem to miss the distinction between hopeful vs. qualified, and that
learning can take place, to move from the former to the latter.
Again, the practical reality of your view is that anyone paying US$50K
would get to be part of the gTLD constituency. That is a simple fact in
This, then, is entirely independent of whether the applicant has any
experience as a registry.
Allowing people into a constituency who have no practical experience in the
matters that are relevant to the constituency makes for a pretty awful
> > ps. For all your preference in ad hominems, Chris, I notice the you
> > ignored my observation that my position on where to draw the membership
> > line is not consistent with what you would expect to be my client's
> > preference. Oops.
>No oops. I didn't choose to point out the obvious. I guess you're asking
>me to. Your client has a vested interest in ensuring the stability of ICANN
>and that there are no threats to that stability. Hence your tactics of
>and avoiding issues that are troublesome to ICANN.
NOW who is diverting? The issue was that I took a position that would not
appear to be ideal for my client. You have STILL chosen not to respond to
it, instead inventing a chain of supposed motives and logic about both my
client and me.
You also ended with a fully inaccurate statement, using your own model: If
I were " avoiding issues that are troublesome to ICANN" I would not be
arguing about this or other troublesome topic. Exactly the opposite of my
But again thank you for underscoring the fundamental problems with publicly
pursuing motives and their implications.
>a vested interest in preventing new competition, hence your position of
>not allowing applicants in the constituency.
Unfortunately, there is nothing in any of this that has any sort of effect
at preventing competition.
Dave Crocker <mailto:email@example.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253; fax: +1.408.273.6464
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html