RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

Bret,

I don't think I ignored that at all.  But just to clarify, that is why ICANN
should limit its policy making to a very narrow spectrum of issues related
to technical and stability issues.  Note that I definitely said that users
should have a strong voice in the polciy making process.  I just disagree
with a small subset of users who really do not represent all users running
the show so that they can push their special interests that are often not
the same as the broader interests of all users.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Bret Fausett [mailto:fausett@lextext.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 12:36 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; DNSO General Assembly
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency


Chuck,

What your analysis ignores is that ICANN develops policies that are binding
on users (e.g. UDRP) via the registration contract with registrars. Users
have no choice in the matter, so the market has no ability to ensure that
some registrars/registries will "not be successful over time" as a result of
bad policies. The only way to give users a voice in these policies, that are
as binding on them as the ICANN registry contracts are on your constituency,
is through the GNSO.

      -- Bret

Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> At the same time, that does not mean that the impact to those not under
> contract is not important or even that it is less important.  In fact, I
> would argue that the ultimate users (customers) are what it is all about
> and, if businesses supporting those users ignore that fact, they will not
be
> successful over time.
--
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