Poor registrars can be putvoted by consumers? (RE: [ga] ERC's SecondImplementation Report)

[Marc Schneiders <marc@fuchsia.bijt.net>]

Your complaint seems to me to stem from a very one-sided view of the
situation and perhaps therefore smelling of selfpity.

For three reasons:

1. You have a contract with ICANN. If you do not like the changes they
make, you can quit as registrar/-try.

2. Those who have a domain have not more choice: Either accept your
(registry/-rar) changes or cancel their domain name.

3. You are operating in a regulated market. You have the benefits of the
fact that consumers have little choice. Accept also the hardships. If you
operate in a free market, consumers can vote you out with their money. In
a regulated market, they should have other means to tell you that you do
it wrong.

And additionally: Has ICANN ever passed a pro-consumer decision against
the registrars/-tries?

On Sun, 15 Sep 2002, at 10:22 [=GMT-0400], Jeffrey J. Neuman wrote:

> 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@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