ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[ga-full]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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
--------------------------------------------------------


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>