___________________________________________________________________________
____
This message is intended for the individual or entity named above. If you
are not the intended
recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to
others; also please
notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from
your system. Thank you.
___________________________________________________________________________
____
Ivan, I don't understand this point. If you can join those other
constituencies that you mention, it would be because you meet the
membership qualifications, which are different from constituency to
constituency. Thus, it hardly seems odd that you might qualify for some
but not all; if this were not the case, it would make little sense to have
constituencies. Yes, I know there are some that will say: "Aha! That's
just the point; we should not have constituencies." But the water has
already flowed past that bridge, and there are constituencies, which are
intended to provide ways for the DNSO (and thus ICANN) to get input from a
number of specific different perspectives. Having chosen that path, it
would make little sense for the constituencies to be homogenized. With
respect to the registrar constituency, that was specifically intended as a
vehicle for accredited registrars to provide their specific input. Since,
as you point out, there are other ways in which your input can be provided,
including general public comment in addition to the other constituencies,
there seems no particular reason to dilute the focus of the registrar
constituency. To the best of my knowledge, you get no prizes for being in
a particular constituency, and your voice and views are certainly not
excluded, so why the fuss?
(Embedded
image moved Ivan Pope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
to file: 06/24/99 09:29 AM
pic09705.pcx)
Extension:
To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: (bcc: Joe Sims/JonesDay)
Subject: RE: [IFWP] The CORE plot thickens ... Re: [announce] Registrars
Constituency
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
pic09705.pcx
