Re: [ga] Response to your posting on the NC List

[eric@hi-tek.com]

Well this sounds pretty realistic.
It is good to remember that ICANN is a forum.  All of its' technical functions
are just that.  Either they offer the best product or cajole the most control or
we go elsewhere.
I believe that world wide they are running at a losing pace.  They maybe still
ahead but not by much.
I do not believe ICANN was involved with the contracting for dotUS. EU looks
enticing and China is a wild card. This LACNIC will be more important than many
think. Some argue pricing and I disagree it is brandability that makes a name
worth 5k USD.  Anyone can get on line that is not an issue anymore, anyone can
piggyback a website/page, four kids going together with milk money can afford
it.

So I think Mssr. Palage that you may rethink this position with regard to "only
when we have time" will we participate.  I do not know who has the ace up the
sleeve but ICANN is now playing a losing hand.
Don't get me wrong I love power politics and free enterprise, we just must
recognize that we are not playing a child's game of fish but a dangerous game of
Poker, with real stakes.  How many ISPs exist today that existed in 1998?  Run
through that list of Registrars and try to ring all of them up on the telly -
not going to happen.
Our company is not a registrar and is not a registry and is not an Isp but we
fulfil all of these functions and watch ICANN like a hawk.

Sincerely,
Eric Dierker
Hi-Tek


"Michael D. Palage" wrote:

> Excellent idea Michael.
>
> There were no limitations on participation when I chaired Working Group B.
> We had over 100 members and approximately 50-70 people that posted
> regularly. And guess what, the only thing Working Group B found consensus on
> was that there should additional safeguards for trademark owners during the
> roll-out of a new TLD. Although the Sunrise received a lot of support from
> the Registrar and IP community, it did not reach a consensus level among all
> participants. So guess what happened, the ICANN Board allowed the market
> forces to work and we had the Sunrise (Afilias) and the IP Claim process
> (NeuLevel). Although each had their positives and negatives, it was what
> should happen on complex issues instead of artificial consensus. This is how
> contracting parties are able to distinguish their services and give
> consumers choice.
>
> Regarding Bret's earlier posting. As I previously stated there is no
> obligation for contracting parties to participate in the ICANN process. I
> actually tried to get ICANN to mandate registrars to join the constituency.
> I was told participation in the (G/D)NSO is totally voluntary. Although I
> would say most contracting parties remain supportive of the principles ICANN
> was founded on, they are just turning off to the political BS and focusing
> on running there businesses. When they see a proposed "policy" that might
> detrimentally impact their business or negatively impact their customers
> they will speak up and rely on the safeguards contained in their contracts.
>
> With regard to Bret's divide and concur scenario, sounds nice in fiction.
> However, except for a small handful of registrars, most registrars are to
> busy trying to run a business and make a living to take time and play in the
> (G/D)NSO policy sandbox.
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Michael
> Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 8:40 AM
> To: Bret Fausett
> Cc: Neuman, Jeff; 'philip.sheppard@aim.be'; 'Secretariat@dnso.org';
> 'bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au'; 'touton@icann.org'; 'ga@dnso.org'
> Subject: Re: [ga] Response to your posting on the NC List
>
> Why isn't the answer to go back to the concept of open Working Groups?
> If honestly administered(*) then no one can say they were excluded, and
> this gamesmanship won't be credible.  Of course, the price is that
> membership won't be manipulable by the people trying to wire the results,
> but you can't have everything.
>
> (*) I know from my exclusion from one that this isn't inevitable, but
> maybe we've learned something...
>
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Bret Fausett wrote:
>
> > So here's the game I'd play if I were in charge of the registrars. I'd
> > divide the 140 odd registrars into three groups, figuring that opposition
> > from 40+ registrars is certainly the kind of thing that could kill a
> > "consensus" policy. I'd steer the (G/D)NSO policy process as best I could
> > with my single task force representative, asking the rest of my
> constituency
> > to stay quiet. I'd see what the task force recommended to the NC.
> Regardless
> > of the result, I'd figure that I could still make the result better for my
> > registrar interests. I'd then ask my first block of registrars to weigh in
> > with their vigorous opposition. We'd negotiate a little more at the NC
> > level, make the process better for registrars and come up with a new
> > recommendation for the Board. At this point, my second registrar block of
> 40
> > would noisily complain about the result. We'd repeat the negotiations and
> > make things even better for the Board vote. I'd still have 40 previously
> > silent registrars to file an independent review if I remained unhappy with
> > the result.
> >
> > That's not the way this is supposed to work, is it? Isn't there an
> > obligation on impacted parties to come forward with their views as early
> as
> > possible, preferably during the task force process via the task force
> > representative?
> >
> >           -- 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
> >
> >
>
> --
>                 Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                       -->It's very hot here.<--
>
> --
> 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