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

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> Yet we're setting up a system in which established groups will have a set
> vote on each and every issue.


A possible solution lies in some evolved form of Esther's musings regarding
the "party" concept within ICANN.


                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow



----- Original Message -----
From: "Bret Fausett" <fausett@lextext.com>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>; "Neuman, Jeff"
<Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>; "'Michael D. Palage'" <michael@palage.com>;
<ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency


> > We ask for EQUAL voting representation.
>
> As I noted yesterday, the big problem with set voting blocks is that the
> allocation doesn't take any account of the issue under discussion. Take
UDRP
> revision as one example. The groups most impacted are trademark holders
and
> domain name registrants. Registrars have an implementation obligation. But
> where is the gTLD registry interest? Under the "equal voting
representation"
> plan, however, when UDRP revision comes up for consideration in the GNSO
> Council, the gTLD registries will have 25% of the votes. Does that make
any
> sense? By the same token, where's the intellectual property interest (as
> distinguishable from the interests of registrants generally) in transfers?
> Yet we're setting up a system in which established groups will have a set
> vote on each and every issue.
>
>          -- Bret
>

--
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