[reg-com] RE: [council] Registry changes PDP (fwd)
- To: <reg-com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [reg-com] RE: [council] Registry changes PDP (fwd)
- From: Marc Schneiders <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 20:05:28 +0200 (CEST)
- Sender: owner-reg-com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Here it is, as requested...
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 19:48:33 +0200
From: GNSO SECRETARIAT <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Marc Schneiders <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] Registry changes PDP
Would you please be so kind as to post your remarks to the working GNSO
Committee working list as well
De : owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]De la part de Marc Schneiders
Envoye : lundi 29 mars 2004 19:26
A : council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Objet : [council] Registry changes PDP
I have two fundamental problems with the flow charts/process:
Why does ICANN have to look at the business side of the proposal? I'd
say this is irrelevant to the job of ICANN. Unless it involves
monopoly issues, which is more related to the technical implementation
(cf. e.g. WLS). Wheter the proposal is sound from a business
perspective is none of ICANN's business.
2. Where does the GNSO (users, which I am supposed to represent) come
in if staff decides a quick look is OK or no approval needed? I see it
in the flow chart, but this is then the repeal process.
We all know this is NOT in place. So it is of no use to refer people
to that, is it? I may not understand.
I do not think it is worthwhile to spend time to device a bureacratic
procedure that has no safe guards for users except litigation. Users
cannot afford that or are not organised enough to let it materialize.
Users make no money from domain names. That explains it. ICANN does
not do user protection. I understand that (though feel it is wrong
since ICANN manages a restricted market). Those who are in the domain
name industry do organise for obvious reasons. Feel free to say that
domain name registrants should do the same. They have less incentive
though. It is a great principle of law to protect the most weak, even
if it is their own fault. So let's do that?
NCUC council rep