RE: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package

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

I'll have to let Rita and Jeff speak for themselves. All I can talk to are
things that I directly know have been put forward.

First of all, we have consistently tried to point out there needs to be a
separation of users and producers.  And we have made clear that such a
separation does not mean that users and producers do not at some point have
to come together.  It just is very ineffective to start together because of
the very divergent interests of the two groups.  A GNSO with essentially the
same composition as the DNSO today does not solve this problem. BTW, it
serves certain consituencies interests very well because they have been able
to capture the DNSO, but the results have not resulted in anything close to
a true consensus process, but rather a political process that caters to
special interests.

Secondly, and this is one of the serious problems with the recommendations,
the GNSO should not be involved in issues that are outside of ICANN's
mission.  In the next to last draft that I saw, there was some language to
deal with this.  In the final document all such language was deleted.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Bret Fausett [mailto:fausett@lextext.com]
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 5:52 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package


Chuck,

I honestly can't remember what Rita and/or Jeff may have proposed that was
rejected. Please refresh my recollection.

      -- Bret

Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> The gTLD RC reps on the committee with you suggested alternatives.  They
> were rejected.  But it certainly doesn't make sense to perpetuate the
> current problems that exist.
> 
> Chuck
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:fausett@lextext.com]
>> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 5:04 PM
>> To: Gomes, Chuck; ga@dnso.org
>> Subject: Re: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package
>> 
>> Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>>> Doesn't help my concerns at all Bret.  The bottom line, the GNSO will
have
>>> the same basic makeup as the DNSO does.  That hasn't worked and it still
>>> won't.
>> 
>> What's the alternative then?
>> 
>>      -- 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