Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1452
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, October 1 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1452

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

Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 11:31:54 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
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 [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: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:37:09 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

> Yet we're setting up a system in which established groups will have a set
> vote on each and every issue.

A possible solution lies in some evolved form of Esther's musings regarding
the "party" concept within ICANN.

                       -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: "Bret Fausett" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>; "Neuman, Jeff"
<[email-masked]>; "'Michael D. Palage'" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 2:31 PM
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 [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: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:35:35 -0400 
From: Cassidy Sehgal <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

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: [email-masked] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:27 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; 'Michael D. Palage'; [email-masked]
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" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Michael D. Palage'" <[email-masked]>; "Ross Wm. Rader"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
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:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 11:49 AM
> To: Ross Wm. Rader; [email-masked]
> 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: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Ross Wm.
> Rader
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 10:15 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> 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" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> 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 [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
>
> --
> 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
- --
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: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:40:25 -0400
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Ross,

To follow-up on my original post so there is no confusion. My statement did
not explicitly state nor was it meant to imply that you made false or
inaccurate statements in connection with the DROC litigation. What I was
trying to impress upon you is that some people take and construe the heated
dialogue between participants on this list and use it for their
personal/political benefit. As I have stated in past and documented in my
Congressional testimony earlier this year, my wife was confused by two
domain name renewal statements that she received in the mail.

One of the more important ICANN lessons that I learned after the Melbourne
meeting and the VeriSign contract renegotiation debacle was the need for
constituencies to take accountability for their actions. One of the reasons
that the Registrar Constituency has signed votes on major positions is so
that there is documented ACCOUNTABILITY. Without going into the details, my
friends at VeriSign wanted to know who in the registrars constituency
provided the information that was the basis of the registrar constituency's
statements in Melbourne. This event demonstrated to me first hand the need
for constituencies to take responsibility and accountability for their
actions.

Unlike other constituencies that put forth and advocate positions on behalf
of global constituencies without ever showing the actual signatories to the
position, the registrars and registries sign on the dotted line. Other
constituencies engage in what I call this the Great Wizard of Oz slide of
hand, where a select few leaders that are able to physically attend every
meeting allegedly speak on behalf of their global constituency.
Unfortunately the silence of members should not equate to acquiescence or
acceptance. All I am requesting is that constituencies have their members
sign and take accountability. Please lets not allow a few leaders to hide
behind the curtain like in the Wizard of Oz and pretend they are someone
they are not.

By way of example, on behalf of the registrar constituency, I sent a letter
to the DoC supporting ICANN reform along with email confirmation from EVERY
signatory. No short cuts, no putting words into people's mouth.
Accountability pure and simple. The most recent post to the ERC was done in
consultant with the Registrar Executive Committee to reaffirm the Registrar
Constituency's support of ICANN reform including the increase voting rights
as discussed in Amsterdam.

I could go on but I am probably only speaking to a wall since most people
have already made up their mind.

So in summary Ross, please don't put words in my mouth, and hopefully this
email clarified any ambiguities that people may have read into mine.

Mike

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Michael
D. Palage
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 11:49 AM
To: Ross Wm. Rader; [email-masked]
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: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Ross Wm.
Rader
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 10:15 AM
To: [email-masked]
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" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
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 [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

- --
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: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 19:46:33 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Loss of voting rights, October 20, 2002

- --=======20E383E=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-23831FB0; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Thank you for the most inept thing I ever heard about ICANN. I suppose the 
ccTLDs IP addresses will be removed from the root master file on month 
after. May be we can close ICANN for Xmas?

On 17:34 01/10/02, [email-masked] said:
>The Council Chair has posted the following notice.
>(excerpts):
>
>ISPCPC:
>Show-cause notice on July 18, 2002
>Final notice August 20, 2002
>Loss of voting rights, October 20, 2002
>ISPCPC amount owed $13.994 for 2002
>A 5% late fee of $699.70 was levied on 18 July, 2002.
>An additional 5% late payment fee of $ 699.70 for the final notice, August
>20.
>
>
>NCDNHC:
>Show cause notice on July 18, 2002
>Final notice August 20, 2002
>Loss of voting rights, October 20, 2002
>NCDNHC amount owed $13.774 fore 2002
>A 5% late fee of $699.20 was levied on 18 July, 2002.
>An additional 5% late payment fee of $ 699.20 (final notice)
>
>
>ccTLDs:
>Show cause notice July 18, 2002
>Final notice August 20, 2002
>Loss of voting rights, October 20, 2002
>ccTLD amount owed  $11,994.
>A 5% late fee of $599.70 levied on 18 July, 2002
>An additional 5% late payment fee of $ 524.75
>
>
>Conclusion
>**********
>
>Until payment is received for all past due amounts, including any late
>payment fees, the ccTLDs, NCDNHC, and ISPCPC will lose voting rights as of
>20 October 2002.  This will have an impact on the Names Council meeting on
>28 Oct 2002.
>
>Note that the lack of voting rights does not stop the participation of all
>constituencies in names council meetings.  I hope the non-voting
>constituencies will continue to participate actively in names council
>activities until (or if) the new GNSO and CNSO are formed.
>
>What I propose is that for any resolution that is voted on after 20 October
>2002, we note:
>(1) for, against, and abstentions for voting members which will decide names
>council resolutions in accordance with our rules of procedure and ICANN
>bylaws
>(2) for, against, and abstentions for non-voting members - this information
>will be made publicly available in the minutes of the names council
>
>Regards,
>Bruce Tonkin
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc11/msg00092.html
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>----------
>
>Had the ICANN Board approved the DNSO resolution to underwrite the costs of
>the DNSO Secretariat, we wouldn't now be in this predicament.  However, that
>particular effort was effectively sabotaged by the registrars and registries
>that through the Budget Advisory Committee recommended against any such
>financial support...
>
>What a wonderful affirmation of the concern of "contracting parties" for the
>needs of the user community.
>
>
>--
>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
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.391 / Virus Database: 222 - Release Date: 19/09/02

- --=======20E383E=======--

- --
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: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:46:43 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Jeff, 

It continues to be your intent to draft transfers policy within the context 
of the registry-registrar agreement to which ICANN is not a signatory.  By 
deeming the proposal to constitute "new policy" your goal is to ensure that 
registries receive payment for adjudication services under the Prices for 
Registry Services clause.  This serves only your own self-interest.  
Meanwhile, registrants are not empowered to appeal to ICANN should their 
requested transfer be denied because ICANN in the context of this contract 
has no enforcement obligations.  

This is not a user-friendly approach, and user needs would better be served 
by placing the policy language within the Registrar Accreditation Agreement 
to which ICANN is indeed a party and in which they are obliged to take an 
enforcement role.  Your current plan makes no provision for registrant appeal 
(as only registrars may initiate the appeals process, and these registrars 
may choose not to invoke such process should they be daunted by the prospect 
of having to pay significant fees to a registry should their appeal fail).  
Again, user interests are not being put at the forefront of such discussion; 
rather the debate has centered solely upon which constituency gets stuck 
paying the bill for enforcement.  

Instead of seeing a concern for users, all that I am seeing is registries 
attempting to devise yet another way of making a buck.  
- --
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: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 15:03:33 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

> down a policy or proposal.  The providers are looking to ensure that the
> views of the registry/registrar constituencies are not overlooked with

The "providers" are looking to each protect their own interests. This isn't
a bad thing, but it is the thing that each and every other stakeholder is
looking to protect as well. Joe Sims sums it up best in a recent post to the
NC list..."internecine carping at each other is not only not productive, but
is directly fueling the initiatives and agendas of others who may not have
the best interests of ICANN or the ICANN community at heart. The idea here,
after all, is consensus development; its very hard to encourage that when
the parties responsible for that effort are demonstrating that they are more
interested in gaining some advantage over each other."

> 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?

As Jim Fleming noted earlier, that depends entirely on how you define
"equal". It also depends on the notion that you buy into the concept of
"providers", "users" etc...language that has long been dropped from the
discussion. Instead, let's have a chat about "balance", "interests" and
"consensus". Let's have a frank exchange about where the common ground
between the competing proposals lies. Let's stop demonstrating that we are
more interested in gaining some advantage over each other and start working
through the policy issues.

                       -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: "Cassidy Sehgal" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>; "'Michael D.
Palage'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 2:35 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

> 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: [email-masked]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:27 PM
> To: Neuman, Jeff; 'Michael D. Palage'; [email-masked]
> 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" <[email-masked]>
> To: "'Michael D. Palage'" <[email-masked]>; "Ross Wm. Rader"
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> 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:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 11:49 AM
> > To: Ross Wm. Rader; [email-masked]
> > 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: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Ross Wm.
> > Rader
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 10:15 AM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > 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" <[email-masked]>
> > To: <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: <[email-masked]>
> > 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 [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
> >
> > --
> > 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

- --
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 #1452
*************************