___________________________________________________________________________
____
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, this was about as bottom-up as it comes; the recognition request came
in this way, and it was accepted by the Board because that definition
seemed to be what made sense. Since only accredited registrars could be
affected by ICANN policies relating to registrars, I still don't understand
your angst. In any event, I've now done my best to explain, and more would
be just argument, so I'll leave it at that
(Embedded
image moved Ivan Pope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
to file: 06/24/99 11:45 AM
pic31664.pcx)
Extension:
To: "'Joe Sims'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Esther Dyson (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mike
Roberts (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (bcc: Joe Sims/JonesDay)
Subject: RE: [IFWP] The CORE plot thickens ... Re: [announce] Registrars
Constituency
Joe Sims wrote:
> ... 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. ... With
> respect to the registrar constituency, that was specifically
> intended as a
> vehicle for accredited registrars to provide their specific
> input.
Joe,
This is a totally wrong, though not atypical ICANN attitude.
You cannot say that the Registrar constituency was "specifically intended
as
a vehicle for accredited registrars".
I quote the bylaws at http://www.icann.org/bylaws-09apr99.html#VI-B
(a) Each Constituency shall self-organize, and shall determine its own
criteria for participation, ...
(b) The initial Consituencies shall consist of (in alphabetical order):
6. registrars
I am most interested in how a constituency that will 'determine its own
criteria for participation' can be deemed to be 'specifically intended as a
vehicle for accredited registrars'. That is a nonsense. The constituency is
fully empowered to decide who may be members. As can all the other
constituencies.
This is supposed to be a bottom-up process. You must stop assuming that you
can impose a scheme of things.
>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.
Again, you just assume that you know what the Registrar constituency is
made
up of. You do not. Nor, actually, does 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?
This is pathetic. Either there is value to constituencies and their
representative structures or there isn't. You seem to imply that there is
no
real value, so don't bother with it. We tend to take this a bit more
seriously. We have been in the industry for years and have used the
Registrar/Registry structure for years. I believe that it is vital that
Registrars of all hues have input to ICANN. Where else are they supposed to
go?
If you wanted a committee of ICANN accredited registrars, you should have
created one yourselves.
Ivan Pope
NetNames
pic31664.pcx
