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

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

I disagree with a couple points Karl.  Public utility commissions are
properly equipped to perform their regulatory role and they provide
procedures of due process; that makes them a very poor comparison with
ICANN.  ICANN was given a very narrow mission not at all like the mission of
PUCs. Also, I know its popular to think that ICANN is captured by those it
regulates, and for our own business interests, I almost wish that was the
case.  But that has not been our experience.  Moreover, a simple look at the
DNSO and in particular the NC, clearly shows that that is not the case
there.

Chuck  

-----Original Message-----
From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl@cavebear.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 9:42 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: 'ga@dnso.org'
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency


On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> What we end up with is a situation where a minority of vocal people have
> undue influence over businesses that are restricted via contracts in terms
> of what they can or cannot do.

"undue" is a subjective conclusion.

As for that kind of situation - that's what happens when one decides to
become a regulated supplier.  What you describe is normal life for bodies
subject to things like public utility commissions.

And what is ICANN if not a regulatory body - the public utility commission
of its root in the Internet's domain name system and the IP address space?

And like many regulatory bodies, it has become captured by those it 
regulates.

		--karl--
--
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