Ken Stubbs wrote: > i believe your recollection is wrong here ivan... > > what i believe was stated in the meeting was that registrars > representing > cctlds registries were welcome to join the constituencies and > involve themselves > in creation of input for establishing recommendations for > policies and > procedures for icann PROVIDING their specific registries > were willing to > commit themselves and the registrars within their specific > registry to adhering > to those policies and practices. Ken, This is quite hard to decipher (what's wrong with capital letters?), but I think it says that: Any ccTLD Registrar can join the constituency if their local Registry committed to adhering to 'those policies and practices'. Well, this is along the lines of what I proposed, but the effect is that no non-ICANN Registrar can join the constituency for the forseeable future. > the majority of the cctlds i am aware of are not willing to > submit themselves > nor their registrars to this process nor recognize icanns > role as it relates to > setting procedures for registrars who work within their > specific cctld Well, how many other constituencies are made up of those who will submit themselves to the policies and practices of ICANN? What's wrong with a little dissent? I would expect that there will be members in the IP, ISP, Commercial constituencies who would disagree with ICANN policies and practices. After all, this isn't an ICANN support group, its a representational assembly. > it would then follow that they > should not be entitled > to a role in creation of policies or procedures that they > were not obligated to > recognize , adhere to or follow within their own specific registry. To start with the ccTLDs have not been asked. Secondly, there is no logical connection here. Why have we created a constituency that will only have members who have signed up to a binding agreement. Is there no room for dissent? I think the EU will want to add this to their investigation of the whole area. > that would be equivalent to a us citizen being allowed > involvement and related > voting rights on legislation which governs the citizens of > the netherlands or > ireland and then having the right to disavow and abide by > the laws he or she > created. Look, I can join the IP/ISP/Business constituencies and vote without any of this nonsense. > this does not mean that registrar input from these people > would not be welcomed > as they represent a "wealth of experience and knowledge" but > is does indicate > that there is no logical basis for allowing them votes in > creation of these > policies and procedure recommendations. Many of 'these people' have far, far more Registrar experience and businss experience than the current members of the constituency. How much Registrar experience does your company have so far Ken? I think this exclusion is disgusting. > why should anyone be allowed to help create rules and > procedures and then have > the right to disavow responsibility for following the rules > and procedures he > helped to create. That's democracy, baby. Ivan
