Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> down a policy or proposal.  The providers are looking to ensure that the
> views of the registry/registrar constituencies are not overlooked with

The "providers" are looking to each protect their own interests. This isn't
a bad thing, but it is the thing that each and every other stakeholder is
looking to protect as well. Joe Sims sums it up best in a recent post to the
NC list..."internecine carping at each other is not only not productive, but
is directly fueling the initiatives and agendas of others who may not have
the best interests of ICANN or the ICANN community at heart. The idea here,
after all, is consensus development; its very hard to encourage that when
the parties responsible for that effort are demonstrating that they are more
interested in gaining some advantage over each other."

> pointed this out, but I have yet to hear from you why providers and users
> cannot come to the table as equal partners to work through policy issues?

As Jim Fleming noted earlier, that depends entirely on how you define
"equal". It also depends on the notion that you buy into the concept of
"providers", "users" etc...language that has long been dropped from the
discussion. Instead, let's have a chat about "balance", "interests" and
"consensus". Let's have a frank exchange about where the common ground
between the competing proposals lies. Let's stop demonstrating that we are
more interested in gaining some advantage over each other and start working
through the policy issues.


                       -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: "Cassidy Sehgal" <cassidy.sehgal@registrypro.com>
To: <ross@tucows.com>; "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>; "'Michael D.
Palage'" <michael@palage.com>; <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 2:35 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency


> Ross,
>
> How is asking for equal treatment "preferential"? That is entirely
> illogical. The providers would not have the ability to unilaterally vote
> down a policy or proposal.  The providers are looking to ensure that the
> views of the registry/registrar constituencies are not overlooked with
> regard to the development of policies that we are CONTRACTUALLY bound to
> implement.  I realize that members of our constituency have repeatedly
> pointed this out, but I have yet to hear from you why providers and users
> cannot come to the table as equal partners to work through policy issues?
>
> Cassidy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 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

--
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