RE: [council] gTLD CONSTITUENCY

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

Milton,

I have to object to the criteria for membership in the gTLD Constituency,
as you set up below. It is not enough to wish to be a Registry and
to really be a Registry.

Let me only focus on 7 new approved ones -- it takes them months 
to set up a workable structure, which may be looked as a practical
examination on what Registry means.

The similar is for new ccTLD Registry (how many time to get into workable
.ps ? -- just to not speak about .eu, where the specta of difficulties
is much larger).

I do not understand how from the Non-Commercial international 
perspective you may even consider that $50,000 is sufficient 
to buy a membership (sorry for pushing reasonning to extreme).

I am looking for the gTLD Constituency enlarged soon to 1+7 members.

Elisabeth
NB. If it were enough to wish to speak plain English to really do
    speak plain English, the world would be different :-)
    You may replace English by French.

> Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 22:55:48 -0400
> From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>
> To: <council@dnso.org>, <ncdnhc-discuss@lyris.isoc.org>
> Subject: RE: [council] gTLD CONSTITUENCY
> 
> Roger raised some valid points in his message below. A new registry constituency must have clear membership criteria. However, it is unfair to restrict membership in the gTLD constituency to those who are already licensed, as they would have strong incentives to limit competitive entry.
> 
> Fortunately, there is a simple way around this problem. 
> 
> The new registry constituency can consist of any organization that has officially applied to ICANN to become a registry. 
> 
> At this point in time, that means all those organizations that paid ICANN's $50,000 non-refundable application fee. 
> 
> This is a simple, clear criterion. No one can contend that those who applied are not seriously committed to ICANN and to the registry business.
> 
> --MM
> 
> >>> "Cochetti, Roger" <RCochetti@verisign.com> 03/26/01 07:53 AM >>>
> 
> 1) While there are quite a few proposals floating around for "registry industry trade associations" that would include any business that considers itself a registry, this Constituency is an ICANN DNSO constituency, whose principal purpose is to provide input into the ICANN DNSO process.  So, while the registry industry may well need and get a broad trade association, we did not feel that the " DNSO Constituency " was the venue for it; and 
> 2) In order to provide some meaningful boundary for the DNSO Constituency, accreditation is a fairly clear demarcation;  beyond that, things get murky and fairly debatable; and  
> 3) Whereas the commitment that an organization makes to express interest in becoming a gTLD registry is limited,  the commitment rises considerably
> after accreditation, ensuring the full commitment of the Constituency to the DNSO's work.  
> 
> 
>