Re: [ga] Registrants Rights

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rod,

The question about registrant representation and the role of registrant 
representatives in ICANN *needs* to be answered because it goes to the heart 
of ICANN's legitimacy.
An honest answer about the "timeframe" may help ICANN transitioning from its 
unsustainable self-perpetuating Board composition.
If the question remains taboo, even at ICANN's public meetings, the 
commissioning of the (rejected) Carl Bildt report and the LSE study will be 
too evident as sops.
Joop

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andy Gardner" <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <rod_beckstrom@xxxxxxxxx>; "General Assembly of the DNSO" 
<ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 8:19 AM
Subject: [ga] Registrants Rights


> Dear Mr Beckstrom,
>
> At the public forum in the Sydney ICANN Meeting, Kieren McCarthy  stated 
> that questions could be asked via an online question box, and  that if 
> time ran out to answer those questions during the public  forum, answers 
> would be provided later.
> Taking advantage of the remote participation opportunity, I asked the 
> following of the Chairman of the ICANN Board, Peter Dengate-Thrush:
> "Peter, in 1999 in Santiago you spoke towards a Constituency for  Domain 
> Registrants. 10 years on Registrants - who pay a significant  tax to 
> ICANN - have no vote. Do you think it's time Registrants had a  hands-on 
> role in ICANN?"
> The reply form Peter was:
>
> "Okay. I don't think we're going to be able to answer that in this  time 
> frame. Next in line?"
> I was hoping you might be able to let me know in what timeframe Peter 
> will be providing an answer to my question.
> Kind regards,