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

[Don Brown <donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net>]

Of course, but the point missed or avoided is that the Registries are
akin to mini-monopolies.  If it wasn't for that stark differentiation,
Free Enterprise would be the best course.


Monday, September 30, 2002, 7:21:18 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
GC> Gene,

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

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

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

GC> 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
>> 
GC> --
GC> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
GC> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
GC> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
GC> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html




----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
----

--
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