Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1443
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Sunday, September 29 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1443

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 18:26:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> As the ERC properly realized, not all stakeholders are equally affected.

That is the same nonsense that told ValuJet and Alaska airlines that they
were affected more by the cost of their mantainence and freight loading
policies than were those who were merely passengers.

Those who use the domain name system are just as affected by it as those
who sell domain names - this is true whether measured on an individual or
cumulative basis.

(As an example of a large affect on a single domain name holder - One
could well conclude that the single DNS user IBM would be affected more
than the total value of neustar by the failure of "ibm.com" to work.)

The "mine is bigger therefore I get more say" argument is one that has 
been one of the primary sources of ICANN's failures.

		--karl--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 22:41:52 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

The registrars have now posted a virtually identical statement:

Dear ERC:

As the Chair of the Registrar Constituency, the registrars have been a vocal
supporter of reform from the beginning as recently demonstrated by our
letter to the DoC which was signed by 52 ICANN accredited registrars from 17
different countries, including 8 out of the top 10 registrars. One of the
main reasons that we supported ICANN reform from the beginning was because
of the perceived inefficiencies of the current DNSO. Unfortunately, as the
ERC process has evolved the inefficiencies of the current DNSO appear to be
re-emerging.

As the ERC properly realized, not all stakeholders are equally affected. The
registrars and registries are contractually bound to comply with any ICANN
consensus policies.  New or changed policies can have a significant
financial impact on their operations.  We believe that the protection of
registrar and registry rights as contracting parties within the proposed
GNSO is an important safeguard. The ccTLDs by contrast have advocated and
succeeded in obtaining their own supporting organization. This option is not
available to GTLD registrars and registries. They remain vitally dependent
on policy formulated in the GNSO. The registrars and
registries are willing to work with users and non-contracting parties within
the GNSO to make the ICANN process work.

We regard the equal voting representation of registrars and registries as
proposed by the most recent
ERC as a critical step in the right direction. We are concerned that user
constituencies, which many consider to be grossly under-representative of
their actual
constituents (see
http://www.icannwatch.org/essays/palage-representativeness-2.0.pdf), are
attempting to obtain an unfair majority in the new GNSO. We hope that the
ERC stays true to its course about bringing meaningful change within the
ICANN process.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage
on behalf of the ICANN Registrar Constituency
http://forum.icann.org/reform-comments/implementation/msg00030.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 20:53:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

> (As an example of a large affect on a single domain name holder - One
> could well conclude that the single DNS user IBM would be affected more
> than the total value of neustar by the failure of "ibm.com" to work.)

One can definitely conclude that.  gTLDs are a public trust, not some
business opportunity.

> 
> The "mine is bigger therefore I get more say" argument is one that has 
> been one of the primary sources of ICANN's failures.
> 

A huge degree of respect for the size and potential of a may-never-materialize 
"domain name industry" seems to have led people to forget that the DNS is a 
service.  We're not here to give startups a comfortable sense of the future,
we're here to make sure domain names resolve into IP addresses and MX records.

> 		--karl--

Carl

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 22:51:15 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN and the Representativeness of its Constituencies

Michael and all assembly members,

  After reviewing from our {INEGroup] staff and members, including
other non members in the IT industry, your conclusions here Michael are
in short "ALL WET".  They are effectively slanting the representativeness
towards Registrars and Registries which in now real sense can represent
in name, the stakeholders/users.  Hence it is and still remains evident
that the obvious power play that your "Document" below suggests
inconsistent with the MoU and White paper as well as the skewed,
incomplete constituency model which has yet be be fully recognized
as the ICANN BOD and staff have denied other forming constituencies
from being "Officially recognized" or otherwise "ICANN Accredited".

Michael D. Palage wrote:

> Attached please find a pdf document that I am working on in connection with
> an audit regarding the representativeness of each of the ICANN DNSO
> constituencies. Any comments would be welcome.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael D. Palage
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                                     Name: Representativeness-2.0.PDF
>    Representativeness-2.0.PDF       Type: Portable Document Format (application/pdf)
>                                 Encoding: base64

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 [email-masked]
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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 06:56:22 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Fact: An organization under contract with ICANN that is required to comply
with new policies imposed by ICANN is not impacted in the same way that an
organization that is not under contract.  They are not "equally" affected.
They are affected in different ways, one directly, one indirectly.

At the same time, that does not mean that the impact to those not under
contract is not important or even that it is less important.  In fact, I
would argue that the ultimate users (customers) are what it is all about
and, if businesses supporting those users ignore that fact, they will not be
successful over time.

In my opinion, a major problem with the current system of policy development
in the DNSO and more particularly the NC is that five out of seven
constituencies are on the user side of the equation and therefore are in a
situation where they can determine very significant policy issues that have
no direct impact on themselves.  Moreover, in the past year they have
regularly ignored input from those who are under contract, with little or no
regard to that input except to include it as a minority opposing opinion.
To be very frank, they often 'could care less' whether or not the businesses
that are contractually bound are impacted in a negative way as long as they
accomplish what they personally and politically want.  Moreover, they claim
to represent the interests of the broader user community but there is little
hard evidence to support that.  The truth is that they represent relatively
narrow interests at the expense of broader user interests.

What we end up with is a situation where a minority of vocal people have
undue influence over businesses that are restricted via contracts in terms
of what they can or cannot do.  It is extremely effective for the vocal
minority, but I do not believe that it is in the best interest of the
Internet community at large.  First of all, as many on this list have noted
many times, the most important users do not even have direct representation.
Secondly, it results in a non-viable business model for those under contract
because their mode of operation is controlled by outside special interests
rather than overall market forces.

Let me cite one specific example to illustrate what I am trying to say.
Consider the ongoing focus on Whois.  Where has most of the focus been in
the NC and its Whois Task Force?  It definitely hasn't been on the privacy
of registrants.  Why is that?  Isn't the privacy of registrants an important
issue?  Doesn't it impact huge numbers of registrants?  

It is critical that all users have strong influence in the policy
development process but the current system makes it too easy for a small
minority of users to capture the process and focus only on what they want.
It also is clear that it is very difficult to effectively involve "all
users" in the policy development process in a direct way. But there already
is a mechanism whereby the broad base of users can be represented: create a
system where users have real choices in their buying patterns and let them
speak through those choices.  Minimize the regulatory policy control to
those instances where it is clearly needed (e.g., security and stability of
the Internet) and let the market work freely.  Then and only then will users
be broadly represented.  Finally, those businesses under contract who ignore
the statements made by users in the marketplace will lose.

Chuck   

- -----Original Message-----
From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 9:26 PM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> As the ERC properly realized, not all stakeholders are equally affected.

That is the same nonsense that told ValuJet and Alaska airlines that they
were affected more by the cost of their mantainence and freight loading
policies than were those who were merely passengers.

Those who use the domain name system are just as affected by it as those
who sell domain names - this is true whether measured on an individual or
cumulative basis.

(As an example of a large affect on a single domain name holder - One
could well conclude that the single DNS user IBM would be affected more
than the total value of neustar by the failure of "ibm.com" to work.)

The "mine is bigger therefore I get more say" argument is one that has 
been one of the primary sources of ICANN's failures.

		--karl--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 07:46:33 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Chuck and all assembly members, stakeholders/users or other interested parties,

  I personally believe that Chuck here has adequately expressed in brief
what is basically wrong with ICANN and especially with the DNSO
as well as in part the NC.  The structure is basically skewed.

  I must also express as to Chucks comments/statements below that
our [INEGroup] members have frequently shared much of what chuck
has briefly outlined below, with ICANN, the DOC/NTIA, and
other governmental organizations many many times.  However I
can frankly say that with respect to the contractual obligated
entities (Registries, Registrars, RIR's and a few ccTLD Registries)
that those contracts were and remain inadequate, as well as
unenforceable, in many obvious and frequently stated/expressed
ways on this very DNSO GA Forum.  These concerns and
noted problems could have been addressed some time ago now,
had not the ICANN legal staff been receptive to the than
participating stakeholders/users and many of their suggestions.
Unfortunately they were not receptive at all.  Hence now we
have a mess which is growing in scope and size, that has
damaged the industry as a whole, and stakeholders/users individually
to such a degree that many are, and have called for a rebid of the
ICANN contracts in their entirety.

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Fact: An organization under contract with ICANN that is required to comply
> with new policies imposed by ICANN is not impacted in the same way that an
> organization that is not under contract.  They are not "equally" affected.
> They are affected in different ways, one directly, one indirectly.
>
> At the same time, that does not mean that the impact to those not under
> contract is not important or even that it is less important.  In fact, I
> would argue that the ultimate users (customers) are what it is all about
> and, if businesses supporting those users ignore that fact, they will not be
> successful over time.
>
> In my opinion, a major problem with the current system of policy development
> in the DNSO and more particularly the NC is that five out of seven
> constituencies are on the user side of the equation and therefore are in a
> situation where they can determine very significant policy issues that have
> no direct impact on themselves.  Moreover, in the past year they have
> regularly ignored input from those who are under contract, with little or no
> regard to that input except to include it as a minority opposing opinion.
> To be very frank, they often 'could care less' whether or not the businesses
> that are contractually bound are impacted in a negative way as long as they
> accomplish what they personally and politically want.  Moreover, they claim
> to represent the interests of the broader user community but there is little
> hard evidence to support that.  The truth is that they represent relatively
> narrow interests at the expense of broader user interests.
>
> What we end up with is a situation where a minority of vocal people have
> undue influence over businesses that are restricted via contracts in terms
> of what they can or cannot do.  It is extremely effective for the vocal
> minority, but I do not believe that it is in the best interest of the
> Internet community at large.  First of all, as many on this list have noted
> many times, the most important users do not even have direct representation.
> Secondly, it results in a non-viable business model for those under contract
> because their mode of operation is controlled by outside special interests
> rather than overall market forces.
>
> Let me cite one specific example to illustrate what I am trying to say.
> Consider the ongoing focus on Whois.  Where has most of the focus been in
> the NC and its Whois Task Force?  It definitely hasn't been on the privacy
> of registrants.  Why is that?  Isn't the privacy of registrants an important
> issue?  Doesn't it impact huge numbers of registrants?
>
> It is critical that all users have strong influence in the policy
> development process but the current system makes it too easy for a small
> minority of users to capture the process and focus only on what they want.
> It also is clear that it is very difficult to effectively involve "all
> users" in the policy development process in a direct way. But there already
> is a mechanism whereby the broad base of users can be represented: create a
> system where users have real choices in their buying patterns and let them
> speak through those choices.  Minimize the regulatory policy control to
> those instances where it is clearly needed (e.g., security and stability of
> the Internet) and let the market work freely.  Then and only then will users
> be broadly represented.  Finally, those businesses under contract who ignore
> the statements made by users in the marketplace will lose.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 9:26 PM
> To: [email-masked]'
> Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
>
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>
> > As the ERC properly realized, not all stakeholders are equally affected.
>
> That is the same nonsense that told ValuJet and Alaska airlines that they
> were affected more by the cost of their mantainence and freight loading
> policies than were those who were merely passengers.
>
> Those who use the domain name system are just as affected by it as those
> who sell domain names - this is true whether measured on an individual or
> cumulative basis.
>
> (As an example of a large affect on a single domain name holder - One
> could well conclude that the single DNS user IBM would be affected more
> than the total value of neustar by the failure of "ibm.com" to work.)
>
> The "mine is bigger therefore I get more say" argument is one that has
> been one of the primary sources of ICANN's failures.
>
>                 --karl--
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked]
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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 06:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> What we end up with is a situation where a minority of vocal people have
> undue influence over businesses that are restricted via contracts in terms
> of what they can or cannot do.

"undue" is a subjective conclusion.

As for that kind of situation - that's what happens when one decides to
become a regulated supplier.  What you describe is normal life for bodies
subject to things like public utility commissions.

And what is ICANN if not a regulatory body - the public utility commission
of its root in the Internet's domain name system and the IP address space?

And like many regulatory bodies, it has become captured by those it 
regulates.

		--karl--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 16:03:27 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

- --=======1B1D217A=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-4A5A7738; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 12:56 28/09/02, Gomes, Chuck said:
>Fact: An organization under contract with ICANN that is required to comply 
>with new policies imposed by ICANN is not impacted in the same way that an 
>organization that is not under contract.  They are not "equally" affected. 
>They are affected in different ways, one directly, one indirectly.

True. Let suppress ICANN and its artificial contracts and let the market 
decide. RFC 920 and 1591 say that TLD Managers are Registrants community 
trustees. Once for all let have VRSN be the trustee of a not charged .com 
domain name registrants community, selling them the value added services 
they want. Which business can build stable developments if it is imposed to 
fire its customers or to trick them into being a prospect as through the WLS.

Obviously this means that registrants may also create other communities 
than ".com". But it also means that VRSN may propose specialized services 
to other communities than ".com". Under that terms I would certainly be 
interested partnering with MicroSign instead of being obliged to fight them.
We would enter quality competition instead of lower price/grade competition.

I really feel the Internet is still under a 1983 USSR like bureaucratic 
mismanagement system.
Some Glatznost please, Comrade Joseph Sims.
Peretstroika does not mean Joe+Louis+Stuart perpetual trinity.
Let lift the Icann Curtain.
jfc

- --=======1B1D217A=======--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 09:35:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Chuck, 

- --- "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> the Internet) and let the market work freely.  Then and only then
> will users
> be broadly represented.  Finally, those businesses under contract who
> ignore
> the statements made by users in the marketplace will lose.

All of the arguments you made could have been made from the other side,
and have been. This "holier than thou" attitude from the "contracted
parties" is hilarious to watch. Does Jeff Williams write your letters?
:) Verisign is a one-trick pony (meeting the needs of its consumers
isn't that trick!), and I hope to be there when it meets its destiny.

As for your "final" conclusion, that might be true, if only there was
no monopoly by those businesses, wouldn't you agree? The place wher
there is no monopoly, at the registrar layer, is showing that Verisign
is unable to compete on a level playing field. 

Control of the .com registry as a monopoly allows Verisign to dictate
to its consumers, as you well know, unless that abusive monopoly is
countered. Having a monopolist talk about letting "the market work
freely" is not the answer, it's just another sign of wanting
unrestrained power to abuse the market.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

P.S. Is there a pattern in Chuck's postings? Everytime VRSN stock takes
a beating, he seems to post more. Might make an interesting academic
study for someone to analyze the correlation....

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 09:35:56 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Chuck,

What your analysis ignores is that ICANN develops policies that are binding
on users (e.g. UDRP) via the registration contract with registrars. Users
have no choice in the matter, so the market has no ability to ensure that
some registrars/registries will "not be successful over time" as a result of
bad policies. The only way to give users a voice in these policies, that are
as binding on them as the ICANN registry contracts are on your constituency,
is through the GNSO.

      -- Bret

Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> At the same time, that does not mean that the impact to those not under
> contract is not important or even that it is less important.  In fact, I
> would argue that the ultimate users (customers) are what it is all about
> and, if businesses supporting those users ignore that fact, they will not be
> successful over time.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 15:52:43 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

George and all assembly members,

George Kirikos wrote:

> Chuck,
>
> --- "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > the Internet) and let the market work freely.  Then and only then
> > will users
> > be broadly represented.  Finally, those businesses under contract who
> > ignore
> > the statements made by users in the marketplace will lose.
>
> All of the arguments you made could have been made from the other side,
> and have been. This "holier than thou" attitude from the "contracted
> parties" is hilarious to watch. Does Jeff Williams write your letters?

  Thank you for the attribution here George.  However I think Chuck
spoke pretty well all by himself for "Verisign's" interests.  >;)

>
> :) Verisign is a one-trick pony (meeting the needs of its consumers
> isn't that trick!), and I hope to be there when it meets its destiny.

  >;)  Well they seem to have done pretty well so far although for the
life of me I often wonder how or why...

>
>
> As for your "final" conclusion, that might be true, if only there was
> no monopoly by those businesses, wouldn't you agree? The place wher
> there is no monopoly, at the registrar layer, is showing that Verisign
> is unable to compete on a level playing field.

  I don't know George, Verisign is still the "Big Dog" so far...  I am not
sure as to why and yes they are loosing market share.  But that's
a good indication that competition is working well, don't you think?

>
>
> Control of the .com registry as a monopoly allows Verisign to dictate
> to its consumers, as you well know, unless that abusive monopoly is
> countered. Having a monopolist talk about letting "the market work
> freely" is not the answer, it's just another sign of wanting
> unrestrained power to abuse the market.

  Now here you have a good point from a registry stand point.

  Verisign should have never been given .COM by ICANN.  There
should have also been and can still be, a real TLD that can effectively
compete with .COM.  .ECOM perhaps?

>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> P.S. Is there a pattern in Chuck's postings? Everytime VRSN stock takes
> a beating, he seems to post more. Might make an interesting academic
> study for someone to analyze the correlation....
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked]
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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 16:00:59 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Bret and all assembly members,

  As others here have noted, and more coming to the conclusion that
the "GNSO" as well as the ICANN Reform Effort is an abomination
and a ruse.

  The "GNSO" if to be successful must give a VOICE AND A VOTE
to any and all stakeholders/users.  It must provide representative
positions on the ICANN BOD, which is 51% of the BOD members.
Anything less as was clearly determined in the ALSC, will certainly
fail, and damage huge numbers of various levels of stakeholders,
this to include suppliers (Registries/Registrars and RIR's)...

Bret Fausett wrote:

> Chuck,
>
> What your analysis ignores is that ICANN develops policies that are binding
> on users (e.g. UDRP) via the registration contract with registrars. Users
> have no choice in the matter, so the market has no ability to ensure that
> some registrars/registries will "not be successful over time" as a result of
> bad policies. The only way to give users a voice in these policies, that are
> as binding on them as the ICANN registry contracts are on your constituency,
> is through the GNSO.
>
>       -- Bret
>
> Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > At the same time, that does not mean that the impact to those not under
> > contract is not important or even that it is less important.  In fact, I
> > would argue that the ultimate users (customers) are what it is all about
> > and, if businesses supporting those users ignore that fact, they will not be
> > successful over time.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked]
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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 10:22:48 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IAB on ICANN Mission

On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 23:49:06 +0000, "Roberto Gaetano"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>David Farrar wrote:
>
>>
>>So the RIRs, the IAB and the ccTLDs are all saying that ICANN is not
>>listening and trying to impose decisions top-down.
>>
>>Is there anyone left for ICANN to piss off?
>>
>
>IPC? BC?

Heh.  Now that Mr Sims has indicated his support of the
registry/registrar position over the IPC/BC position (which
statistically indicates a 98% likelihood of how the Board will vote) I
think IPC and BC can be added to the peeved off list :-)

>More seriously, what do RIRs, IAB and ccTLDs have in common?
>The first thing that comes to my mind is that they were working reasonably 
>well *before* ICANN, and therefore their first concern is how to continue 
>working *in spite of* ICANN.

Absolutely.  ICANN has to date provided almost nothing of benefit to
ccTLDs and has incurred significant costs to them and post a number of
risks.  As you observed RIRs and IAB are same boat.

>The point is that ICANN was created for solving problems that were mostly 
>related to gTLDs: expansion of the namespace, introduction of competition, 
>dispute resolution, and so on. They are all basically saying that ICANN 
>should fix the things that are broken, and not the ones that are not.

I could not agree more.  In that gTLD area they have actually done a
not totally bad job with competitive registrars and some new gTLDs.
But their obsession with trying to interfere in other areas is what is
crippling them in terms of retaining community support.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 09:41:50 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Bret,

I don't think I ignored that at all.  But just to clarify, that is why ICANN
should limit its policy making to a very narrow spectrum of issues related
to technical and stability issues.  Note that I definitely said that users
should have a strong voice in the polciy making process.  I just disagree
with a small subset of users who really do not represent all users running
the show so that they can push their special interests that are often not
the same as the broader interests of all users.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Bret Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 12:36 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; DNSO General Assembly
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Chuck,

What your analysis ignores is that ICANN develops policies that are binding
on users (e.g. UDRP) via the registration contract with registrars. Users
have no choice in the matter, so the market has no ability to ensure that
some registrars/registries will "not be successful over time" as a result of
bad policies. The only way to give users a voice in these policies, that are
as binding on them as the ICANN registry contracts are on your constituency,
is through the GNSO.

      -- Bret

Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> At the same time, that does not mean that the impact to those not under
> contract is not important or even that it is less important.  In fact, I
> would argue that the ultimate users (customers) are what it is all about
> and, if businesses supporting those users ignore that fact, they will not
be
> successful over time.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1443
*************************