RE: [ga] Response to your posting on the NC List

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>]

Excellent idea Michael.

There were no limitations on participation when I chaired Working Group B.
We had over 100 members and approximately 50-70 people that posted
regularly. And guess what, the only thing Working Group B found consensus on
was that there should additional safeguards for trademark owners during the
roll-out of a new TLD. Although the Sunrise received a lot of support from
the Registrar and IP community, it did not reach a consensus level among all
participants. So guess what happened, the ICANN Board allowed the market
forces to work and we had the Sunrise (Afilias) and the IP Claim process
(NeuLevel). Although each had their positives and negatives, it was what
should happen on complex issues instead of artificial consensus. This is how
contracting parties are able to distinguish their services and give
consumers choice.

Regarding Bret's earlier posting. As I previously stated there is no
obligation for contracting parties to participate in the ICANN process. I
actually tried to get ICANN to mandate registrars to join the constituency.
I was told participation in the (G/D)NSO is totally voluntary. Although I
would say most contracting parties remain supportive of the principles ICANN
was founded on, they are just turning off to the political BS and focusing
on running there businesses. When they see a proposed "policy" that might
detrimentally impact their business or negatively impact their customers
they will speak up and rely on the safeguards contained in their contracts.

With regard to Bret's divide and concur scenario, sounds nice in fiction.
However, except for a small handful of registrars, most registrars are to
busy trying to run a business and make a living to take time and play in the
(G/D)NSO policy sandbox.

Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Michael
Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 8:40 AM
To: Bret Fausett
Cc: Neuman, Jeff; 'philip.sheppard@aim.be'; 'Secretariat@dnso.org';
'bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au'; 'touton@icann.org'; 'ga@dnso.org'
Subject: Re: [ga] Response to your posting on the NC List


Why isn't the answer to go back to the concept of open Working Groups?
If honestly administered(*) then no one can say they were excluded, and
this gamesmanship won't be credible.  Of course, the price is that
membership won't be manipulable by the people trying to wire the results,
but you can't have everything.

(*) I know from my exclusion from one that this isn't inevitable, but
maybe we've learned something...

On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Bret Fausett wrote:

> So here's the game I'd play if I were in charge of the registrars. I'd
> divide the 140 odd registrars into three groups, figuring that opposition
> from 40+ registrars is certainly the kind of thing that could kill a
> "consensus" policy. I'd steer the (G/D)NSO policy process as best I could
> with my single task force representative, asking the rest of my
constituency
> to stay quiet. I'd see what the task force recommended to the NC.
Regardless
> of the result, I'd figure that I could still make the result better for my
> registrar interests. I'd then ask my first block of registrars to weigh in
> with their vigorous opposition. We'd negotiate a little more at the NC
> level, make the process better for registrars and come up with a new
> recommendation for the Board. At this point, my second registrar block of
40
> would noisily complain about the result. We'd repeat the negotiations and
> make things even better for the Board vote. I'd still have 40 previously
> silent registrars to file an independent review if I remained unhappy with
> the result.
>
> That's not the way this is supposed to work, is it? Isn't there an
> obligation on impacted parties to come forward with their views as early
as
> possible, preferably during the task force process via the task force
> representative?
>
>           -- Bret
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

--
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                      -->It's very hot here.<--

--
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