ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [registrars] The New Responsive ICANN

  • To: Elana Broitman <ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [registrars] The New Responsive ICANN
  • From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:47:56 -0400
  • Cc: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>, Registrars@xxxxxxxx
  • In-reply-to: <BCAAA5D64C837641A9EBB93E2A50894804F9B6EC@ex2k01.corp.register.com>
  • Organization: Tucows Inc.
  • References: <BCAAA5D64C837641A9EBB93E2A50894804F9B6EC@ex2k01.corp.register.com>
  • Reply-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030723 Thunderbird/0.1

On 8/13/2003 8:46 AM Elana Broitman noted that:

I believe that it's all the varied voices.  The policies have been determined.  This group is not about changing policies. It is about giving ICANN advice as they go about implementing the policies.  That's why it's quite informal.

I was under the impression that this was a formal part of the policy implementation process, especially limited to providing the ICANN staff with advice regarding specific implementation details - not an ad hoc/informal effort, nor a policy determination effort. I've got another call with Tina this week and I'll bring this up with her so that I'm completely clear what the mandate of this group was. I thought I was clear on this point, but I'm getting conflicting signals. I hope that our constituency has the opportunity to formally put forward specific representatives that can look out for our collective interests. I'm not comfortable with unelected appointee's providing informal advice that they have no accountability for (or worse, conflicting accountabilities for.)

In all cases in the past, we have held elections to put forward representatives to committee's and groups like this. Why should it be any different this time around?

I suppose it all boils down to who specifically was being asked to participate. If the ICANN staff wanted someone from register.com to participate, then I suppose that this makes sense - if the staff was looking for a representative from this constituency, then its an entirely different matter. I guess I should inquire as to the specific nature of the staff request as well...



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