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

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

Jeff Neuman writes:  "Where does it say that noncontracting parties should 
not have any say in policies?"

Jeff Neuman also writes on what is or what is not "new policy":  "That is for 
the ICANN staff, the Registry Operators and Registrars to work out as set 
forth in the Registry Agreements."
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00534.html

The registries and registrars want to make sure that only they are the folks 
that get to determine what constitutes "policy".  Consider the recent motion 
put forth and unanimously agreed upon by the registrars at their meeting in 
Amsterdam:  

"Motion: That registrars seek a clarification from ICANN that the transfers 
issue is not a policy issue, so that it be treated by ICANN as an issue to be 
solved outside the GNSO process, all the while approving the idea of 
registrars’ signing these contracts with Verisign registry."

The transfers issue affects millions upon millions of registrants -- how they 
can have the gall to claim that this is not a policy issue defies the 
imagination.  But this is what we can expect if registrars and registries can 
thwart the resolve of the user community through the exercise of veto power 
as currently contemplated in the ERC plan.

Contracting parties don't warrant enhanced voting rights at the expense of 
the rest of the community.  This is a self-interested faction that has 
well-demonstated that they must be kept in check.

 





--
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