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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jeff and all assembly members,

Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Let me add another point.  Nobody is stating that the gTLDs should not have
> to sit down at the table with the user constituencies.  In fact, I believe
> that we should be required to do so for all of the reasons that Chuck has
> explained.
>
> I think that everyone can recognize the difference between being required to
> sit down at the table with the users and being required to adopt any policy
> that the users come up with regardless of whether such policy is technically
> feasible or whether such solution is practicable from a financial
> perspective.

  Of course.  However it is necessary, prudent and in the best interests
of the registries, registrars, and the stakeholders/users that the very
same stakeholder/users, registrants or not, have a voice and a vote
on any and all policies being considered by ICANN or any registry/registrar
that may effect them.

>
>
> The concept of a division between users and providers is NOT a new concept.
> In fact, it was first introduced (officially) in the At-large Working Group
> which many in the GA supported highly (although it was not adopted).
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 8:30 AM
> To: 'DannyYounger@cs.com'; barrister@chambers.gen.nz; ga@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
>
> It's never been clear why the ccTLD registries couldn't "benefit" from the
> input of other consituencies.  ccTLD TLDs involve business, IP,
> noncommerical, and ISP users, so, if the constituency model is to be
> continued, why wouldn't the ccSO have similar constituencies?  I can
> understand why they might want to avoid that, but it is not because those
> constituences are not impacted by ccTLD issues.
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 8:50 PM
> > To: barrister@chambers.gen.nz; ga@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> >
> >
> > Peter,
> >
> > I appreciate your sensitivity to user concerns and note that
> > you have asked,
> > "Why shouldn't the structure require the registries and
> > registrars to sit
> > around the table with their user community?"
> >
> > In light of this question, can you identify the functional
> > mechanism by which
> > relevant user community input will be respected within the
> > proposed ccSO?
> > Perhaps that which is proposed within your own SO can offer
> > some structural
> > guidance to the GNSO...
> >
> > best regards,
> > Danny
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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@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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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