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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Chuck and all assembly members,

  You again point up some good points here Chuck that if you recall
have been hashed and re-hashed before the constituency model was
adopted/forced, than limited by the ICANN BoD and staff.  Your
comments below yet again also point up the inherent problems with the
Constituency model in policy making.  Hence again, I would have to agree
with Danny Youngers long ago idea that each stakeholders, regardless
or their status with interests in DNS policy, become members of the
DNSO GA, with a one person/one vote process for determining
DNS policy issues and eliminate the Constituency's all together.
However a the time when Danny proposed this approach, the
BC and Verisign strongly opposed Danny's idea...  So here we
are yet again trying to solve the original problem with process
and structure of the DNSO...

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> So it seems to me that we should arrange a methodology that prevents any one
> group from having so much power that they can control the process and
> thereby remove incentives to work on solutions that all stakeholders might
> be willing to support.  It doesn't matter whether we are talking about those
> under contract or those who are not under contract or for that matter any
> other classification.  Our goal should be to find a solution that is the
> best for all after considering all stakeholders' concerns.  It should not be
> to see who has the most votes.  Unfortunately, as long as one group has the
> voting edge, that group really doesn't need to listen and possibly
> compromise.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:fausett@lextext.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 2:32 PM
> To: Ross Wm. Rader; Neuman, Jeff; 'Michael D. Palage'; ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
>
> > We ask for EQUAL voting representation.
>
> As I noted yesterday, the big problem with set voting blocks is that the
> allocation doesn't take any account of the issue under discussion. Take UDRP
> revision as one example. The groups most impacted are trademark holders and
> domain name registrants. Registrars have an implementation obligation. But
> where is the gTLD registry interest? Under the "equal voting representation"
> plan, however, when UDRP revision comes up for consideration in the GNSO
> Council, the gTLD registries will have 25% of the votes. Does that make any
> sense? By the same token, where's the intellectual property interest (as
> distinguishable from the interests of registrants generally) in transfers?
> Yet we're setting up a system in which established groups will have a set
> vote on each and every issue.
>
>          -- Bret
>
> --
> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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