Re: [ga] ERC's Second Implementation Report
- To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: [ga] ERC's Second Implementation Report
- From: DannyYounger@cs.com
- Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 13:17:41 EDT
- CC: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Laurence_Djolakian@mpaa.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
I sat across from you at the Washington Senate hearings on dot kids listening
to your Policy and Business Development spokesman argue that the Registry
should not pursue public interest goals if they couldn't be met in a
cost-effective manner. I take issue with your point of view, as did the
members of the Senate.
Registries and registrars perform a function in the public interest. There
will be times when the pursuit of that public interest will carry a price
that registries and registrars may not be inclined to pay. Nevertheless, it
remains your obligation to bear such burden if that is what the public
interest demands. As such, you have no right to be in a position to
effectively veto the will of the remainder of the community (which is what
the ERC plan provides).
You have asked for a real life example of an action that could have been
blocked by both of the "contracted party constituencies" because of cost
considerations. Both of your constituencies on 13 December 2001 acted to
oppose the approval of $170,000 in funding to support the activities of our
own DNSO Secretariat. The following is an excerpt of a letter sent to the
registrar constituency by Ken Stubbs on this topic:
In the Names Council meeting Today i Voted against a request to have ICANN
fund approx $170,000 of the DNSO budget for the next year… Today's actions
only reinforces my concerns that there may be attempts this year to impose
additional financial burdens for ICANN operations & outreach (i.e. at large
outreach) on us and we Registrars need to be even more pro-active.
I would love to be able to cite actual registry discussion on this topic, but
as you well know, the registries have chosen not to abide by ICANN
requirements on transparency and still have no publicly archived discussion
You have also asked how many businesses would agree to implement any policy
(for whatever the cost) without being able to have significant input into the
policy. No one seeks to deny your input (significant or otherwise). At
issue is your new ability to effectively veto the decisions of the remainder
of the Internet Community. The mere fact that you are contractors does not
warrant granting you either veto power or greater voting rights than those
enjoyed by others.
You complain that your constituencies for too long now have been forced to
endure the political games and coalition building. Pardon me if I don't shed
a tear. Some of us (members of the At-large, individual domain name holders,
small businessmen) have absolutely no representation in the process, having
been denied such opportunity by the rest of you. You too are culpable for
this lack of representation, and now you seek even greater voting rights at
the continued expense of the rest of the Community. Don't expect me to
tolerate this approach.
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