RE: [registrars] DOC will not cede control over ICANN??

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Bhavin:

I think this is something that the registrars may want to raise during the
Board's visit to the registrars on Constituency day.

I have re-read this document as well as the presentation that Gallagher gave
to the Wireless Communication Association where these principles were also
outlined, see
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/speeches/2005/WCA_06302005_files/frame.htm,
several times.

I must admit that after my first reading of the document, I shared some of
the same concerns that you have expressed. Then I re-read in another light
and viewed it as reaffirmation by the US of its support for ICANN, which
would be a good thing. I believe the danger in reading too much into this
document is that the WSIS/WGIG process involves a lot of governmental
posturing. Now this does not mean that the registrars should not be
concerned about this process, but reading too much into it might distract
the constituency from much more pressing issues.

My personal opinion for the most pressing issues confronting registrars in
the next six months are as following: the new registry contracts that ICANN
are entering into; the Strategic and Operational Plan Developmental Process;
and the new gTLD evaluation/selection process. These are my personal top
three. Obviously, however, it will be up for the registrar constituency to
set its own priorities.

I look forward to meeting those registrars that will be in attendance at Lux
in the next couple of days.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage








-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Bhavin Turakhia
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 2:27 PM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] DOC will not cede control over ICANN??



> > Does anyone have the link to the actual declaration made by the DOC?
>
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/USDNSprinciples_06
302005.htm
>
> As Milton points out, this is very different than what we
> originally bargained for.

My bigger concern about this is that comments like these further aggravate
various worldwide governments to try and wrest control of these functions
away from ICANN to the ITU ..... Which was DEFINITELY not what we bargained
for. An event like this can take away years of hard public relations work
put in by ICANN and others.

Another concern of mine is that the statement seems to have been made matter
of factly - almost as if they were supposed to do this and that noone can
stop them from doing this.

Hopefully we will get some insight on this at Lux. We have the board and
paul twomey visiting us for a bit

bhavin