Re: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package
Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> First of all, we have consistently tried to point out there needs to be a
> separation of users and producers. And we have made clear that such a
> separation does not mean that users and producers do not at some point have
> to come together. It just is very ineffective to start together because of
> the very divergent interests of the two groups.
There is absolutely no reason that "producers" can't collaborate on areas of
common interest prior to initiating a policy development process. Do what
you want in your constituencies and when you feel it's ready, THEN ask the
Names Council to begin the PDP. Even when the PDP is initiated, there's no
reason the two "producer" constituencies can't collaborate during the
initial constituency consultation period. I don't see the proposed structure
as in any way limiting the ability of those with common interests from
> Secondly, and this is one of the serious problems with the recommendations,
> the GNSO should not be involved in issues that are outside of ICANN's
> mission. In the next to last draft that I saw, there was some language to
> deal with this. In the final document all such language was deleted.
What do you think the language added? It parroted word for word language in
many of the registry contracts. Since we were trying to develop a process
for the GNSO as a whole, not just the registries, it seemed out of place.
The omission of the language though doesn't mean you're still not protected
if that same language is in your contract. (The Board can't amend contracts
by itself, and the adoption of our recommendation would have no effect on
your contracts. They say what they say.)
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html