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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>]

Danny, you consistently do this and pick and choose statements and take them
out of context.  

If you read the Transfer Task Force  Report, you will see exactly what I am
commenting on.  In the draft, Ross had made a statement that a dispute
resolution process was not "new policy."  I made the statement that
introducing a new dispute resolution process may in fact be "new policy" and
as such would require a change to existing Registry/Registrar Agreements.
What does that have to do with not involving users in the process?  Answer:
Nothing.

Why not read and cite this post:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00515.html in which I
explain that we need more time for public input (from the constituencies and
users) on the Transfers Task Force Report before the issue goes before the
NC.  

Danny, please do not make an argument out of context.

 


-----Original Message-----
From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:41 PM
To: Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us; michael@palage.com; ross@tucows.com;
ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency


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