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

[Cassidy Sehgal <cassidy.sehgal@registrypro.com>]

Ross,

	How is asking for equal treatment "preferential"? That is entirely
illogical. The providers would not have the ability to unilaterally vote
down a policy or proposal.  The providers are looking to ensure that the
views of the registry/registrar constituencies are not overlooked with
regard to the development of policies that we are CONTRACTUALLY bound to
implement.  I realize that members of our constituency have repeatedly
pointed this out, but I have yet to hear from you why providers and users
cannot come to the table as equal partners to work through policy issues?   
 
Cassidy 

-----Original Message-----
From: ross@tucows.com 
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:27 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; 'Michael D. Palage'; ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency


> 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?

Preferential treatment. Registries and Registrars each represent but one
interest group.

> Where does it say that
> noncontracting parties should not have any say in policies?


Its implicit in the position. Further, I've heard it said many times "Users
should not have a role in determining the policies/rules/processes/code that
registries/registrars are forced to implement."


                       -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: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>
To: "'Michael D. Palage'" <michael@palage.com>; "Ross Wm. Rader"
<ross@tucows.com>; <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:02 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency


> 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
--
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