Re: [registrars] North American Seat

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> Thank you for your clarifications.

NP - more below...

>
> On #6, I was looking for some other specific examples of your "record" so
to
> speak, in order to judge how you might represent the constituency in the
> future.  For example, one disconcerting historical issue was the Tucows
> position on the VeriSign contract.  Although the rest of the constituency
> (except, of course, VeriSign) agreed on a very strong statement to ICANN
> raising its concerns over the new agreement, Tucows changed its apparent
> early agreement with the constituency to one that was neutral/somewhat
> supportive of VeriSign.  This undermined the constituency. That history
> certainly gives me pause, and therefore I want to know the rest of your
> record in order to understand how you would address registrar issues that
> cut against Tucows' position.
>

Got it - thanks. I've actually had this question asked of me quite a few
times in my conversations with other registrars. Practically speaking, if I
am not representing the interests of the constituency, and I am sure that
any of our NC or elected reps would agree with me on this one, I *might* be
able to get away with it once - if I was lucky. The fact is that, with the
exception of the GAC, all major decisions made within ICANN are a matter for
the public record. If elected reps are voting contrary to the wishes of
those that they represent, it is publicy known very quickly. From a
constituency standpoint, I do favor increased accountability and
communication from our reps to ensure that the little steps along the way
are also consistent with the interests of the constituency - hopefully
something that we will be able to address through the bylaw revisions
project that Liz is picking up.

To stretch the example that you gave above, if I had been an NC rep at the
time, I would have argued hard that the constituency needed not only to be
concerned with the monopoly rights enjoyed by Verisign but also that this
was balanced with the long-term needs that ICANN has. If at the end of the
discussion, the constituency did not agree with this view, I would have had
to put my corporate beliefs behind those of the constituency and ensured
that I reflected the demonstrated voice of the constituency. I can't talk
out of both sides of my mouth at the same time - its physically impossible
and, in the ICANN arena, painfully obvious.

For the record however, I would disagree with the implication that Tucows
position undermined the constituency's submission. As Palage noted in a
communication to the Names Council at the time "TUCOWS has submitted its own
position statement modeled after the [constituency] position with some
distinctions." While Tucows may not have fully agreed with the proposition
put forth by the Registrar Constituency, we feel that our alternative
independent submission was both responsible, and in many ways supportive of
the registrar position paper. The Constituency draft dealt with the issue in
very black and white terms. Terms that we weren't comfortable with knowing
that shades of gray are always present even when public statements to the
contrary have been made, as they were in this case. The record should also
reflect that 11 registrars fully supported the constituency draft and three
other registrars noted their disagreement and submitted independent
comments, not including Verisign Registrar, which makes for 4 independent
submissions.

For anyone that's interested, the formal constituency submission can be
found here http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg00409.html and
the Tucows submission can be found here
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg00407.html - I wasn't
able to quickly find links for the other three independent submissions.

Hopefully this clarifies further - thanks for the opportunity to address
your questions.

-rwr