ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] Registrants Rights

  • To: Andy Gardner <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, rod_beckstrom@xxxxxxxxx, General Assembly of the DNSO <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] Registrants Rights
  • From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:34:34 +1200


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.


----- 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,

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>