Ah well... if and only if.... .....ICANN would declare the global public interest as its reason to be. And if it'd just get over itself and flat out say 'we a regulator!' all this argumentation over the unilateral right to amend from the RySG would be just some pissing in the wind. The fact is ICANN unilaterally gave registries license to monetize character strings, known and hitherto unknown. And then ICANN took a little shaving from that gift, called a fee. You see so-called third world fleshpots condemned for the exact same thing with tones of high moral dudgeon. Not to make too fine a point of it, the registry operators got themselves a gift that keeps on giving; a protected market, all of us lessees. Quite apart from the unlucky - or plain dumb - few, they're all the better for it. Now, here's the catch. Such action most places are usually in the gift of the state. And the state tends to raise a statist actor, sometimes called a regulator - and in noisome places, a regular 'bagman' - to protect its interests. The common method to retain some measure of control is a license; see the definitive meaning of that term. And since that license is the fiat of the state, it usually is handed down, no input from the licensee other than their name and particulars. Take it. Or, leave it. If ICANN would just come out and state the obvious, "I am a regulator, suck on it' all this unpleasantness would've been avoided. The contract is supposed to reflect ICANN standing athwarts the portal, like Leonidas guarding that gateway to Thermopylae, as it were, protecting the global public interests from the marauding - go with the metaphor now! - 'contracted parties'. The figment is the claim that the contract is this bastion of consensus policy making. That is overstating the facts and brushing the line beyond which propaganda begins. For the contracted parties no way in hell see the rest of the community as having a say in all this. Quick now, who can recall them crying out for all of us, the fry, being invited to the party? To be brutally frank, I see this kvetching of Chuck Gomes and the RySG crowd purely as a manifestation of impatience with the assault on their sense of exceptionalism. Message from me: count your fingers going in. And count 'em again, coming out. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Date: 3 May 2013 17:10 Subject: Registries Not Happy with Registry Agreement To: NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu
Powerful comments from Chuck Gomes & Verisign about the proposed Registry Agreement and ICANN's lack of good faith in the negotiation process:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-base-agreement-29apr13/msg00002.html
It would seem things aren't as cheery and ready to close on RA as ICANN said.
Best, Robin _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)