DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [nc-org] Expression of concern


Your concerns I do understand. Please aloow me to make four

1. As Milton has already pointed out, the report does not state that
there _have_ to be elections for management. On the contrary. It says
"and/or". Applicants can state how they implement this. Could also be
(though I hope not) some advisory council.

2. At some time, long ago it seems now, I suggested, before this task
force even began, that ORG might be turned into a cooperative. This
was not a good idea, if only because 'cooperative' means something
different in different countries. 

3. This whole operation is the result of resolving problems with a
monopoly/cartel-like market. Either you give ORG to a commercial
competitor of VeriSign (which can then market it as a competitor of
Com and NET), or you regulate the market in another way. The latter
was chosen by ICANN (and/or VeriSign). We are talking about a
_regulated_ market. 

4. If you give ORG to a non-profit, who is going to monitor the
non-profit ORG officers/management? Not the market. So who? Some form
of input/voice from those who use/buy ORG names seems inevitable. ORG
is, as now defined by the ICANN/VeriSign contract, something in
between market and democracy. Like ICANN itself.


On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, at 14:52 [=GMT-0500], Ken Stubbs wrote:

> Fellow task force members
> I have previously expressed serious concerns about the concept (outlined in section 1c)
> of "registrants electing officers of the registry management company."
> Personally, i feel that this policy  could easily  dissuade many"qualified", experienced  entities from submitting proposals (if they knew that once they were successful their senior management could then be arbitrarily replace by a subsequent vote of the registrants.)
> Discussions with other registrars indicate that  they are deeply concerned
> that whatever entity assumes responsibility for future management of the
> registry be professionally managed by people with extensive experience and
> knowledge of the industry.... (not just people who may be popular with
> registrants.)
> Registry mgt. is a business and needs a continuity of Experienced ,
> knowledgable management along with an assured consistency of application of
> policies. This could not necessarily be assured if the managers were
> selected by "popular vote" of the registrants.
> Registrars need to have confidence that the entity they are doing business
> with has this top quality professional management  with an in-depth
> knowledge of this business.
> I would hope you would seriously re-consider this issue as it is of paramount importance ..
> ken stubbs

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>