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

["Peter Dengate Thrush" <barrister@chambers.gen.nz>]

Sounds like a goal I support . How do we bell this cat?

regards
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
To: "Bret Fausett" <fausett@lextext.com>; "Ross Wm. Rader"
<ross@tucows.com>; "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>; "'Michael D.
Palage'" <michael@palage.com>; <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:36 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency


> So it seems to me that we should arrange a methodology that prevents any
one
> group from having so much power that they can control the process and
> thereby remove incentives to work on solutions that all stakeholders might
> be willing to support.  It doesn't matter whether we are talking about
those
> under contract or those who are not under contract or for that matter any
> other classification.  Our goal should be to find a solution that is the
> best for all after considering all stakeholders' concerns.  It should not
be
> to see who has the most votes.  Unfortunately, as long as one group has
the
> voting edge, that group really doesn't need to listen and possibly
> compromise.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:fausett@lextext.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 2:32 PM
> To: Ross Wm. Rader; Neuman, Jeff; 'Michael D. Palage'; ga@dnso.org
> 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@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-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