<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
Ross,
Your statements ignore the fact that on many issues (and you have agreed
with me in the past), the interests of all user groups are aligned in the
same material way. For example, with respect to transfers, how do the
interests of IP owners, Business Users, and Noncommercial Users differ. The
answer is that they do not in any material way.
Yet, in the current constituency and voting process, this one position has
three votes, whereas the Registries have one vote and the Registrars have 1
vote. Please help me understand the justification for this. We do not want
to exclude anyone from the debate.
We just want the Board to be given an accurate assessment of what is going
on so that they can be in a position to determine whether consensus actually
exists.
We do not want preferential treatment, just equal.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:27 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; 'Michael D. Palage'; ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> We ask for EQUAL voting representation. Where does it say in the above
> statement that the contracted parties should have MORE voting rights than
> the noncontracting parties in the aggregate?
Preferential treatment. Registries and Registrars each represent but one
interest group.
> Where does it say that
> noncontracting parties should not have any say in policies?
Its implicit in the position. Further, I've heard it said many times "Users
should not have a role in determining the policies/rules/processes/code that
registries/registrars are forced to implement."
-rwr
"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright
Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>
To: "'Michael D. Palage'" <michael@palage.com>; "Ross Wm. Rader"
<ross@tucows.com>; <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:02 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> Again, here is the gTLD position and this is what the statement said:
>
> "The registrars and registries are willing to work with the
non-contracting
> parties within the same supporting organization, the GNSO, to make the
ICANN
> process work, but only if the safeguards proposed by the ERC in the Second
> Implementation Report are adopted. These includes, most significantly,
the
> provision giving contracted parties equal voting representation as those
> that are not under contract with ICANN. "
>
> We ask for EQUAL voting representation. Where does it say in the above
> statement that the contracted parties should have MORE voting rights than
> the noncontracting parties in the aggregate? Where does it say that
> noncontracting parties should not have any say in policies?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 11:49 AM
> To: Ross Wm. Rader; ga@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
>
>
> Ross,
>
> I never said that "users" should not be involved in policy development.
> Obviously the DROC litigation did not teach you a lesson about false and
> inaccurate statements.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Ross Wm.
> Rader
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 10:15 AM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
>
>
> > This has to be one of the most inaccurate postings in recent memory.
>
> And completely besides the original point. To get back to the real issue,
> the registry constituency and the registrar constituency executive have
> determined somehow that "users" need not be concerned with the development
> of policy within the DNSO.
>
> This is an untenable position that completely ignores the reality of the
> DNSO by assuming that the contracts that registries and registrars have
with
> ICANN should somehow provide them with preferential treatment at the
expense
> of registrants. Brett rightly pointed out that there is a compromise
> position here that isn't being explored - perhaps it is time to pick up
that
> ball and run with it.
>
> -rwr
>
>
>
>
> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
> idiot."
> - Steven Wright
>
> Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
>
> Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
> http://www.byte.org/heathrow
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <barrister@chambers.gen.nz>
> To: <ga@dnso.org>
> Cc: <cctld-discuss@wwtld.org>
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 8:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
>
>
> > This has to be one of the most inaccurate postings in recent memory.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Neuman, Jeff" <
> > trims
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 5:36 AM
> > Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> >
> >
> > > Thanks Elizabeth, we do recognize the difference at Neustar. However,
> we
> > > also recognize that there are certain issues that should be considered
> > > "global policy issues" and for these it is more appropriate to have a
> > global
> > > body, like the ICANN, to provide that forum than to rely on just the
> local
> > > community. A few examples of these types of issues include (1) Grace
> > > Periods, (2) Transfers, (3) Escrow, (4) Dispute Resolution Policies,
and
> > (5)
> > > Uniform Deletion Periods, etc.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > For any one to seriously regard these as issues which a cctld is going
to
> > regard as not entirely matters of local law is sadly out of synch. with
> > reality.
> >
> > There is nothing -not even the existence (or not) of any of these which
> > necessarily has the slightest to do with ICANN. They are all operational
> > requirements within the local law.
> >
> > Some -perhaps all of these - might be adopted by a local cctld if its
> people
> > believe they want them (Most in fact have them) But to suggest that its
an
> > ICANN issue whether we in NZ (for example) even have a policy on escrow
is
> > quite misguided.
> >
> > Say it after me: IT IS NOT ICANN"S JOB TO MANAGE THE CCTLDs.
> >
> > If a cctld is run "badly", it is not ICANN's job to make it run to its
> > definition of "well".
> >
> > If a cctld wants to run with out escrow -whatever I or you may think of
> > that -that is its choice.
> >
> > It does not derive permission to run the cctld from ICANN. ICANN merely
> > manages the IANA database which records who the manager is. Crucial
> > distinction from the gtlds.
> >
> > It has nothing to do with ICANN - with technical coordination of domain
> > names, if, in a country, there were no provision for resolving
complaints
> of
> > cybersquatting. How can it possibly be of any concern to the technical
> > stability of the net if trade mark owners were arguably losing rights
> > because others were registering their brands as domain names?
> >
> > Either those trade mark owners have remedies under the local law - or
they
> > don't, and nothing about ICANN or cctld management can have anything to
do
> > with it.
> >
> > Other responsible for Mr Neuman need to understand how damaging this
kind
> of
> > foolishness is.
> >
> > The potential for creating a place where the advisability of these
issues
> > can be discussed, where experience can be shared, and common practices
> > voluntarily adopted for the common good will be quite lost.
> >
> > Count up how many countries have signed contracts with ICANN. Ever
wonder
> > why even countries like Canada, Mexico, France, Korea and the
> Netherlands,
> > all of whom have had citizens on the ICANN board are missing from the
> list?
> >
> > Regards
> > Peter Dengate Thrush
> > Senior Vice Chair
> > Asia Pacific TLD Association
> > ccAdcom Meeting Chair
> >
> > Peter Dengate Thrush
> > Senior Vice Chair
> > Asia Pacific TLD Association
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
>
> --
> 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
>
> --
> 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
--
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
>>>
|