RE: [ga] Business Constituency and the GA

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

Peter,

From a business point of view, gTLDs and registrars can make the same
arguments.  If we do not effectively meet the needs of users we will not be
in business long.  So again, I don't see any major differences in this
regard.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Dengate Thrush [mailto:barrister@chambers.gen.nz]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 4:57 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Patrick Corliss'; Philip Sheppard
> Cc: [ga]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency and the GA
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
> To: "'Patrick Corliss'" <patrick@quad.net.au>; "Philip Sheppard"
> <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
> Cc: "[ga]" <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 9:18 AM
> Subject: RE: [ga] Business Constituency and the GA
> 
> 
> > Patrick,
> >
> > Without detracting from your point about the individuals 
> consitutuency, it
> > seems to me that only 3 of the 7 constituencies represent suppliers:
> ccTLD,
> > gTLD and registrars.  The rest are all on the demand side.
> 
> Please read the answers to the questions posed by the g-TLD 
> registries to
> the cctlds about the ccSO* (*= in formation ) and appreciate 
> that ccTLds are
> more than suppliers and are obliged to represent the 
> interests of users and
> individual registrants amongst others in their Local Internet 
> Communities.
> 
> Local (cc) internet policies are the compromise product 
> worked out by the
> interaction of consultation among these groups.
> While not all of us are as good at this as we should, and 
> there is room for
> improvement, re-delegation is the consequence of failure.  
> Accordingly,
> cctlds also represent the demand side.
> 
> >Moreover, only 2
> > of the 7 are actually required contractually to implement 
> any consensus
> > policies developed.  That means that the supply 
> organizations who are most
> > directly impacted by consensus policies only have six of 21 
> votes on the
> NC.
> 
> By which you mean contractually bound by a contract with 
> ICANN to implement
> policies developed within ICANN.  Be aware that the rest of 
> the world runs
> to different rules. Try and appreciate that most of us are 
> not much affected
> by gTLD policy, but that US citizens, who have tended to 
> ignore their cc and
> opt for the generics, tend to be more interested in g-TLD policy.
> 
> In my country, the registry is contractually bound by 
> policies developed by
> the consensus processes adopted by InternetNZ.
> 
> That is why, incidentally, the DNSO needs to remain as it is, as the
> debating chamber for the development of consensus policies 
> affecting the
> g-TLDs, including those interested in and affected by gTLD 
> policies, while
> the ccSO* is the forum for developing both the binding and 
> the voluntary
> policies across the ccTLds.
> 
> 
> Regards
> Peter Dengate Thrush
> Chair, International Affairs
> InternetNZ
> 64 4 499 8959
> 64 21 49 9888
> 
> fax 64 4 471 0672
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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