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

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

Gene,

I think you hit the nail on the head with regard to accountability.

With regard to user representation, I personally think that may always be a
very difficult challenge.  But it is one that I believe can be mostly dealt
with by letting market mechanisms work as freely as possible so that users
can speak through their buying patterns.  This does not at all mean that
users should not have a prominent role in policy making within the ICANN
environment.  It just means that the policy making procedures may always
have limited effectiveness with regard to user representation.

With regard to TLDs, users have quite a lot of choices now and hopefully
even more in the future.  But if all registries are required to have the
same policies, that will not give users as much choice as would be the case
where registries could offer varying policies.  That is why I believe that
global policies should be kept to a minimum, restricted to those that are
essential for technical coordination of the net.

Chuck

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gene Marsh [mailto:marshm@anycast.net]
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:33 AM
> To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Bret Fausett'; 'DNSO General Assembly'
> Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> 
> 
> 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-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