Re: [registrars] [Fwd: Groups - boardrm - New ballot "Amendment to Motion on GNSO task force on contract issues for existing gTLD registries."]

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Werner - this is neither an accident of history, nor an over-reaction to 
the Verisign settlement. Since day one, ICANN has been evolving towards 
a model where the participants of the GNSO (most notably, the 
participants of this constituency) have less influence over registry 
policy and the ICANN staff and registry operator have more. Your 
amendment will only accelerate this tendency - the registrar 
constituency should be seeking to reverse it.
Might I also point out for the benefit of the other members of this 
constituency that CORE's interests as a registrar *are* an accident of 
history. CORE was initially formed as a registry operator for new TLDs 
in the late 90's. Politics and misfortune frustrated their attempts in 
this area and CORE instead settled on becoming an ICANN accredited 
registrar. This does not mean that they have abandoned their registry 
operations interests. I will refrain from suggesting that there is an 
inherent conflict of interest in CORE's position, but would recommend 
that CORE pursue these issues within the registry constituency instead 
of clouding our agenda.
Werner Staub (CORE) wrote:
> Hi Ross,
>
> The reason you suggest for its rejection is beside the point. But
> it shows the nature of the misunderstanding we are dealing with.
>
> If private negotiations between registry and ICANN are the issue,
> then you should propose language to address *that* issue. For
> instance, you might call for a TLD contract negotiation/review
> task force, which would also include people other than ICANN
> staff.
>
> But there is no reason to rule out delegation of policy-making
> authority. On the contrary, delegation of policy-making authority
> is, and should be, the very principle of domain names.
>
> In other words, it is reasonable to apply a filter at the stage
> where delegation of policy-making authority is put into effect
> for a given TLD and for a given policy concern. But the purpose
> of that filter is to enable the delegation and not to prevent it.
>
> Our constituency's current overreaction towards centralization of
> policy-making in the hands of the GNSO is an accident of history.
> I encourage all constituency members not to act in the state of
> emotion caused by the Verisign settlement. Everybody knows that
> the GNSO cannot and should not micromanage individual TLD
> policy.
>
> Regards,
>
> Werner
>
>
> P.S. Very large companies with plenty of lobbying resources will
> of course be utterly delighted to see some constituencies' push
> towards GNSO absolutism.
>
>
>
>
>
> Ross Rader wrote:
> > > The text of this ballot is as follows:
> > > ---
> > > "Amendment to Motion on GNSO task force on contract issues for 
> > > existing gTLD registries."
> > > I suggest to alter 2b. While this may be appropriate for gTLDs,
> > > it is not for sTLDs. sTLDs operate in a defined environment with
> > > special needs, the GNSO has only limited insight. The delegation of
> > > "certain" policy making decisions is appropriate  - and necessary
> > > unless you want the sTLD to stall -  provided the policy
> > > range is well-defined. The problem is to find a definition of the term
> > > "certain".
> >
> >
> > Speaking in my personal capacity, I urge the members of the 
> > constituency to defeat this amendment on the basis that it puts too 
> > much control in the hands of the sponsor and registry operator at the 
> > expense of registrars. The registrar voice in the policy process will 
> > continue to be diminished if we do not keep proper policy making 
> > responsibilities within ICANN's GNSO.
> > By moving more policy making responsibilities to the registries, we 
> > will continue to see private negotiations between ICANN staff and the 
> > registries set the policy that we are forced to work with.
> > -r
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Groups - boardrm - New ballot "Amendment to Motion on GNSO 
> > task force on contract issues for existing gTLD registries."
> > Date: 27 Apr 2006 07:31:03 -0700
> > From: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > To: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > ICANN Registrars Constituency member,
> >
> > A new ballot has been presented to ICANN Registrars Constituency.  To 
> > vote on this ballot, go here:
> > http://www.boardrooms.org/apps/org/workgroup/registrars/ballot.php?id=135
> >
> > Please DO NOT REPLY to this email; instead, vote using the above link.
> >
> > The text of this ballot is as follows:
> > ---
> > "Amendment to Motion on GNSO task force on contract issues for 
> > existing gTLD registries."
> > I suggest to alter 2b. While this may be appropriate for gTLDs,
> > it is not for sTLDs. sTLDs operate in a defined environment with
> > special needs, the GNSO has only limited insight. The delegation of
> > "certain" policy making decisions is appropriate  - and necessary
> > unless you want the sTLD to stall -  provided the policy
> > range is well-defined. The problem is to find a definition of the term
> > "certain".
> >
> > - Yes
> > - No
> > - Abstain
> > - Other
> >
> > ---
> >
> > The ballot closes Thursday, 4 May 2006 @ 12:00 pm PT.  Please vote 
> > before then by visiting:
> > http://www.boardrooms.org/apps/org/workgroup/registrars/ballot.php?id=135
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Boardrooms Administration
> >
> > Regards,

Regards,

--

                       -rr








                "Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions.
                                           All life is an experiment.
                            The more experiments you make the better."
                        - Ralph Waldo Emerson


Contact Info:

Ross Rader
Director, Research & Innovation
Tucows Inc.
t. 416.538.5492
c. 416.828.8783

Get Started: http://start.tucows.com
My Blogware: http://www.byte.org