RE: [ga] ERC's Second Implementation Report

["Jeffrey J. Neuman" <jeff@neumanfamily.us>]

Before I get any flack on this response, let me state up from that this
is NOT a response from NeuStar or the Registry Community, but my own
personal response.

Danny, how can there ever be "consensus" without the support of either
of those constituencies that have to implement a change?  I know some
believe that a 2/3 vote would establish consensus, but how fair would it
be to stack up the user constituencies, add more of them (i.e., the
academics, civil society groups, etc.), in order to attain this 2/3
number.  I would submit that there could never be a "consensus" in the
Internet community without the support of at least one of those
constituencies that have contracts with ICANN.  

Danny, please explain to us how you can have real consensus among the
Internet community without the support of at least one of those
constituencies.  Also, please try to give a real life example of a
policy that was blocked by both of the "contracted party constituencies"
because as you cite "cost." 

Remember that the Registries and Registrars (I.e., those under contract
with ICANN) have to implement any "consensus policy".  It would not be
fair to encourage a process that would effectively make them
insignificant (and always able to be outvoted) in the process especially
when they have to implement it.

As a person who is attempting to start a "small business constituency",
Danny, please let me know how many of your small businesses would agree
to your recommendation if they were a registry or registrar (which most
of the registries and registrars are small businesses).  Tell me how
many small businesses (or even large businesses) would agree to
implement any policy (for whatever the cost) without being able to have
significant input into the policy.  I would submit that the answer is
zero.

Remember, the registries and the registrars are businesses too (although
for whatever reason, they cannot be members of the business
constituency).  They are users of domain names and IP owners as well as
providers of the domain name services.  Yet for too long now, they have
been forced to endure the political games and coalition building.

The time for politics on both sides should come to an end.  Real
consensus building should take place.  In order to achieve true
consensus in the ICANN Community, there should be agreement between
those that are under contract with ICANN and those that are not.  It's
truly perplexing to me, how you can argue that there can be consensus
without the support of at least one of the contracted parties.  
  

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf Of
DannyYounger@cs.com
Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2002 6:29 PM
To: ga@dnso.org
Cc: philip.sheppard@aim.be; mcade@att.com; grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz;
harris@cabase.org.ar; tony.ar.holmes@bt.com; greg_ruth@yahoo.com;
ehchun@peacenet.or.kr; hfeld@mediaaccess.org; faia@amauta.rcp.net.pe;
jse@adamspat.com; Laurence_Djolakian@mpaa.org; shankmane@yahoo.com;
apisan@servidor.unam.mx
Subject: [ga] ERC's Second Implementation Report

The ERC's Second Implementation Report contains a really bad idea.
Consider 
the following example:

Under the current system, a policy could be proposed that might not be 
supported by the registrars and registries (perhaps because such policy
might 
cost them money).  Currently the remaining five constituencies could
outvote 
these two groups and pass the recommendation in the public interest by a
vote 
of 15 to 6 (attaining more than the two-thirds majority required to
establish 
a consensus policy).

Under the ERC's plan, the votes of those under contract are equivalent
to the 
votes of the remaining constituencies.  If the registries and registrars
do 
not support a proposal (perhaps because it will cost them money),  the 
consensus policy recommendation will never be passed because a
two-thirds 
vote is now theoretically unattainable, and even the additional votes of
the 
NonCom selected members are insufficient to reach that two-thirds level.

This ERC plan does not serve the public interest.   

I encourage those constituencies not under contract to vehemently oppose
this 
recommendation.  

--
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-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html