RE: [registrars] Vint Cerf joins Google

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

Ross,

I included you on my list of potential Board candidates understanding
that you have historically opposed this viewpoint. Understanding that
neither of us will likely change our position, I would like to restate
again why I believe a flexible/open approach to those members who serve
on the ICANN Board is a good thing.

First, all the other supporting organizations that have direct elections
to the board (the ASO and ccNSO) have elected in large part
representatives with direct ties to those respective organizations. That
being the case, I do not understand how the GNSO which contributes
upwards of 90% of ICANN's current budget should prohibit people like,
Bruce, Tim, yourself and others from serving on the ICANN Board. I have
never been able to reconcile that distinction.

Second, unlike the other Supporting Organizations, the GNSO has a very
diverse membership that would prevent capture by either the registrars
and or registries. Moreover, if a representative with ties to a registry
or registrar was elected via the Nominating Committee, there would again
be multiple diverse viewpoints to select the best candidates.

Third, I believe the current conflict policies provide a lot more
certainty and predictability, than restrictions on individuals that have
a "major focus" on the registration market. 

Finally, in 2001 you were listed as one of the five people designated in
the Afilias registry contract as not having to be independent of Afilias
and TUCOWS, see
http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/info/registry-agmt-apph-11may01.htm
. This was back when TUCOWS owned Liberty, the registry services company
that was providing backend registry services for .INFO. Just like I had
no reservation about your contribution to the registrar constituency and
the ICANN process back in 2001, I would similarly have no reservation if
you were to serve on the ICANN Board today. In fact I believe that
having an additional individual with ties to the registrar and/or
registry community would be beneficial.

Again, I respect that you and I will not see eye to eye on this topic,
but hopefully this will better layout why I believe a flexible/open
approach with adequate checks and balances is the better approach.

Best regards,

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ross Rader
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 5:41 PM
To: michael@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [registrars] Vint Cerf joins Google


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 08/09/2005 5:11 PM Michael D. Palage noted that;

> I know that some registrars have a position that no employee of a
> registry and/or registrar should serve on the ICANN Board. I 
> personally do not share this overly restrictive view because it would 
> currently prohibit such people as Bruce Tonkin, Tim Ruiz, Ross Rader, 
> Paul Stahura, Tom Keller, Jon Nevett or other leaders within the 
> registrar community from ever serving on the ICANN Board.

As both someone who holds this view and is also named on your list, its
worth noting that I think that its perfectly appropriate that everyone
on that list be restricted from serving on the board while they are in
the employ of organizations who have a major focus on the domain
registration market.

I don't think Vint suffers from this same conflict under Google's
current model.


- --






                      -rwr



Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross
Skydasher: A great way to start your day
My weblog: http://www.byte.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP)

iD8DBQFDIK/X6sL06XjirooRAvPWAJ9pv8ubNcmW+8vaEUcEmEqSajbGHgCfdZau
xlyQW5MGEfQu7bsYqG6I8P4=
=Wkyk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----