[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[registrars] Re: [registrar] RE: [IFWP] The CORE plot thickens ... Re: [announce] Registrars Constituency

At 16:49 24-06-99 +0100, Ivan Pope wrote:
>Joe Sims wrote:
> > ... there are
> > constituencies, which are
> > intended to provide ways for the DNSO (and thus ICANN) to get
> > input from a
> > number of specific different perspectives.  ...  With
> > respect to the registrar constituency, that was specifically
> > intended as  a
> > vehicle for accredited registrars to provide their specific
> > input.
>This is a totally wrong, though not atypical ICANN attitude.
>You cannot say that the Registrar constituency was "specifically intended as
>a vehicle for accredited registrars".
>I quote the bylaws at http://www.icann.org/bylaws-09apr99.html#VI-B
>(a)  Each Constituency shall self-organize, and shall determine its own
>criteria for participation, ...
>(b)  The initial Consituencies shall consist of (in alphabetical order):
>      6.  registrars
>I am most interested in how a constituency that will 'determine its own
>criteria for participation' can be deemed to be 'specifically intended as a
>vehicle for accredited registrars'. That is a nonsense. The constituency is
>fully empowered to decide who may be members. As can all the other
>This is supposed to be a bottom-up process. You must stop assuming that you
>can impose a scheme of things.
> >Since,
> > as you point out, there are other ways in which your input
> > can be provided, including general public comment in addition to the other
> > constituencies,  there seems no particular reason to dilute the focus 
> of the registrar
> > constituency.
>Again, you just assume that you know what the Registrar constituency is made
>up of. You do not. Nor, actually, does the Registrar constituency.

Dear Ivan:

That is your gripe?  The vast majority of those who attended the Registrar 
Constituency meeting in Berlin fully agreed that ccTLD registrars were not 
to be a part of our constituency as they have not agreed to any operating 
procedures set forth by ICANN.

It *was*, indeed, a bottom up process.  We even let the chap from South 
Africa representing a ccTLD registrar take up easily 45 minutes of time 
stating his position and rebutting the rest of us.  Oh, of course, NSI was 
in favour of that position, that makes two by my count, unless you count 
all three NSI persons present.

While the *early* bird gets the worm,
the *second* mouse gets the cheese.