Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
Leah, and fellow Assembly members:
Leah>>Users must have a substantial vote on any policy that impacts them under
present conditions.
I do not have a
problem with this concept -- the new GNSO does provide users with a substantial
voice. The problem is that, as currently defined, users have an
overwhelming vote, which provides users the opportunity (and perhaps the motive)
to ignore the voice of providers and still claim consensus - and force providers
to implement such policies. This plan does not provide equal
representation.
There is clear agreement that parties affected by policies
(ie. users and providers) must have a voice. What users & providers
need to do is to find a way to restore *parity* in the new GNSO. The
current decision model, based on numerical ways to achieve decisions, provides
no parity between users & providers. As long as we stick with a
numerical votes method, we then are responsible to ensure that this method does
not disadvantage one group with respect to the other.
Left unchanged, the current plan inevitably
pits users against providers, when both parties should be equal members around
the table trying to solve the "real" issues at hand. Left unchanged, the
underpinnings of the GNSO will be threatened at every significant turn.
Left unchanged, the GNSO will become a body whose policy-making ability and
authority will be severely curtailed, if not destroyed.
We need to work together to reach agreement -- so
that the goals of reform don't get abandoned before we even begin.
Ram
--------------------------------------------------------
Ram Mohan Vice President, Business Operations Afilias.INFO p: +1-215-706-5700; f: +1-215-706-5701 e: rmohan@afilias.info -------------------------------------------------------- |