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

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

Again, here is the gTLD position and this is what the statement said:

"The registrars and registries are willing to work with the non-contracting
parties within the same supporting organization, the GNSO, to make the ICANN
process work, but only if the safeguards proposed by the ERC in the Second
Implementation Report are adopted.  These includes, most significantly, the
provision giving contracted parties equal voting representation as those
that are not under contract with ICANN. "

We ask for EQUAL voting representation.  Where does it say in the above
statement that the contracted parties should have MORE voting rights than
the noncontracting parties in the aggregate?  Where does it say that
noncontracting parties should not have any say in policies?

Thanks.




-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 11:49 AM
To: Ross Wm. Rader; ga@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency


Ross,

I never said that "users" should not be involved in policy development.
Obviously the DROC litigation did not teach you a lesson about false and
inaccurate statements.

Mike






-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Ross Wm.
Rader
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 10:15 AM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency


> This has to be one of the most inaccurate postings in recent memory.

And completely besides the original point. To get back to the real issue,
the registry constituency and the registrar constituency executive have
determined somehow that "users" need not be concerned with the development
of policy within the DNSO.

This is an untenable position that completely ignores the reality of the
DNSO by assuming that the contracts that registries and registrars have with
ICANN should somehow provide them with preferential treatment at the expense
of registrants. Brett rightly pointed out that there is a compromise
position here that isn't being explored - perhaps it is time to pick up that
ball and run with it.

                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow



----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <barrister@chambers.gen.nz>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Cc: <cctld-discuss@wwtld.org>
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency


> This has to be one of the most inaccurate postings in recent memory.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <
> trims
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 5:36 AM
> Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
>
>
> > Thanks Elizabeth, we do recognize the difference at Neustar.  However,
we
> > also recognize that there are certain issues that should be considered
> > "global policy issues" and for these it is more appropriate to have a
> global
> > body, like the ICANN, to provide that forum than to rely on just the
local
> > community.  A few examples of these types of issues include (1) Grace
> > Periods, (2) Transfers, (3) Escrow, (4) Dispute Resolution Policies, and
> (5)
> > Uniform Deletion Periods, etc.
> >
> >
>
> For any one to seriously regard these as issues which a cctld is going to
> regard as not entirely matters of local law is sadly out of synch. with
> reality.
>
> There is nothing -not even the existence (or not) of any of these which
> necessarily has the slightest to do with ICANN. They are all operational
> requirements within the local law.
>
> Some -perhaps all of these - might be adopted by a local cctld if its
people
> believe they want them (Most in fact have them) But to suggest that its an
> ICANN issue whether we in NZ (for example) even have a policy on escrow is
> quite misguided.
>
> Say it after me: IT IS NOT ICANN"S JOB TO MANAGE THE CCTLDs.
>
> If a cctld is run "badly", it is not ICANN's job to make it run to its
> definition of "well".
>
> If a cctld wants to run with out escrow -whatever I or you may think of
> that -that is its choice.
>
> It does not derive permission to run the cctld from ICANN. ICANN merely
> manages the IANA database which records who the manager is. Crucial
> distinction from the gtlds.
>
> It has nothing to do with ICANN - with technical coordination of domain
> names, if, in a country, there were no provision for resolving complaints
of
> cybersquatting. How can it possibly be  of any concern to the technical
> stability of the net if  trade mark owners were arguably losing rights
> because others were registering their brands as domain names?
>
> Either those trade mark owners have remedies under the local law - or they
> don't, and nothing about ICANN or cctld management can have anything to do
> with it.
>
> Other responsible for Mr Neuman need to understand how damaging this kind
of
> foolishness is.
>
> The potential for creating a place where the advisability of these issues
> can be discussed, where experience can be shared, and common practices
> voluntarily adopted for the common good will be quite lost.
>
> Count up how many countries have signed contracts with ICANN.  Ever wonder
> why even countries like Canada, Mexico, France, Korea  and the
Netherlands,
> all of whom have had citizens on the ICANN board are missing from the
list?
>
> Regards
> Peter Dengate Thrush
> Senior Vice Chair
> Asia Pacific TLD Association
> ccAdcom Meeting Chair
>
> Peter Dengate Thrush
> Senior Vice Chair
> Asia Pacific TLD Association
>
> --
> 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
--
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