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

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

Let me add another point.  Nobody is stating that the gTLDs should not have
to sit down at the table with the user constituencies.  In fact, I believe
that we should be required to do so for all of the reasons that Chuck has
explained.

I think that everyone can recognize the difference between being required to
sit down at the table with the users and being required to adopt any policy
that the users come up with regardless of whether such policy is technically
feasible or whether such solution is practicable from a financial
perspective.

The concept of a division between users and providers is NOT a new concept.
In fact, it was first introduced (officially) in the At-large Working Group
which many in the GA supported highly (although it was not adopted).    



-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 8:30 AM
To: 'DannyYounger@cs.com'; barrister@chambers.gen.nz; ga@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency


It's never been clear why the ccTLD registries couldn't "benefit" from the
input of other consituencies.  ccTLD TLDs involve business, IP,
noncommerical, and ISP users, so, if the constituency model is to be
continued, why wouldn't the ccSO have similar constituencies?  I can
understand why they might want to avoid that, but it is not because those
constituences are not impacted by ccTLD issues.

Chuck  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
> Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 8:50 PM
> To: barrister@chambers.gen.nz; ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> 
> 
> Peter,
> 
> I appreciate your sensitivity to user concerns and note that 
> you have asked, 
> "Why shouldn't the structure require the registries and 
> registrars to sit 
> around the table with their user community?"
> 
> In light of this question, can you identify the functional 
> mechanism by which 
> relevant user community input will be respected within the 
> proposed ccSO?  
> Perhaps that which is proposed within your own SO can offer 
> some structural 
> guidance to the GNSO...
> 
> best regards,
> Danny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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
--
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