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

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

What an interesting email,

I guess by this it is back to a GAC concept running the show because they 
are accountable and intelligent.

Sorry the government cannot keep up.  End of Story.

e

Unless you meant someone else in washington?


> Chuck,
> 
> I understand the tenor of your argument.  However, is it not a small
> subset that represents voters in Washington?  Is it not a group of
> individuals running the show so they may push their special interests? 
> The difference is that the representatives sent to Washington have some
> level of
> accountability to their constituents.
> 
> It seems to me that the focus is off - that the real focus whould be on
> how to best represent those users.  Until the issue of appropriate,
> accountable representation is addressed, there is no way to deflect
> criticism of the representation.  It would be unacceptable to have no
> representation whatsoever.
> 
> I would also suggest that you find someone other than Jeff Neumann to
> write documents representing your position.  I don't know Jeff (sorry
> Jeff, nothing personal), but his written English is lacking.  Concepts
> this important to your argument should really be presented in a more
> clear and elegant fashion.
> 
> Gene...
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Gomes,
> Chuck
> Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 9:42 AM
> To: Bret Fausett; Gomes, Chuck; DNSO General Assembly
> Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> 
> 
> 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@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