>The Registry Constituency has been a vocal
supporter of reform
from its inception. In fact, many of
the Registries joined in a letter to the Department of Commerce expressing our
support for the reform efforts. One of the main reasons that we
supported ICANN reform from the beginning was because of the perceived
inefficiencies of the current DNSO. The
result of such inefficiencies has led those parties that have contracts with
ICANN (namely, the gTLD Registries and gTLD Registrars) to become
disenfranchised with the current policy development process.
Jeff - there's some irony in this. Its not the
inefficiency of the DNSO which you were objecting to, it seems, buts its
efficiency in "disenfranchising" you and the registrars.
>Too often, political games have been played to
overshadow the voices of the Registries and the Registrars in the current
process, even though it is recognized that most, if not all, of the proposed
policies affect the contracted parties in a way that is much different than
those parties that are not under contract with ICANN. Unfortunately, as the ERC process has
evolved, the inefficiencies of the
current DNSO appear to be re-emerging.
Again, you describe a
political result you don't like as an "inefficiency".
>As the ERC properly
realized, not all stakeholders are equally affected.
>The registrars and registries
are contractually bound to comply with any ICANN consensus policies. New or changed policies can have a
significant financial impact on their
operations. We believe that the
protection of registrar and registry
rights as contracting parties within the proposed GNSO is an important and essential safeguard.
Here is where your argument becomes more difficult
for me to follow. You seem to be elevating the contract between you/registrars
and ICANN to a different level of political importance than the contract
beteen a registrant and a registrar. Why?
Given that all the funding flows from registrants to
registrars, that the conditions of end use, and that much of the ICANN policy
discussion is about the impact on users of names and address procedures, why
isn't the view of the vast numbers of registrants significantly more important
than the views of the providers??
Why shoudn't the g registries be obliged to adopt at
least a little of the ethos (which we regard as contractually binding via RFC
1591, as well as socially appropriate) binding the cc registries, that the
registry has to serve the community its provided to serve? Why shouldn't the
structure require the registries and registrars to sit around
the table with their user community?
If the conditions of the user community result in a
business which is unprofitable, or unsuited, those entities running them can
take a busines decision to leave that business. If, on the other hand, the
conditions imposed by registries and registrars are unsuitable for users,
where can they go?
My personal preference would be to ensure that users
rights should be more carefully protected that those of registries and
registrars, precisely because they are typically small,
individual, disparate and the economic effect per person makes any
issue uneconomic to fight. OTOH registries and registrars have well-known
economic and political advantages.
You blur this issue to speak of "contracting parties"
while ignoring the end user contracts.
There is a need to balance the undoubted importance
of successful and innovative registries and registrars, competing in an
economic battle for business, with the needs of users.
Considerable clarity of thinking is need to ensure all interests are kept in
balance.
regards