RAA contract participation
hi all, i think Avri's on to something here. i agree with the points she's making. http://www.circleid.com/posts/registrar_stakeholder_group_gnso_works_against... i haven't been tracking our positions on these motions -- i'm hoping that we're supporting the conclusions of the WG and resisting the inclination of the Council to rewrite the WG's conclusions. mikey - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
I support the BC supporting the NCSG on this issue. Philip ---------- i all, i think Avri's on to something here. i agree with the points she's making. http://www.circleid.com/posts/registrar_stakeholder_group_gnso_works_against... nn_multistakeholder/ i haven't been tracking our positions on these motions -- i'm hoping that we're supporting the conclusions of the WG and resisting the inclination of the Council to rewrite the WG's conclusions. mikey
What's the logic behind the registrars position? It doesn't seem to be represented in her article. So, while I understand her POV because it's well developed, I don't understand why the registrars are intransigent on this subject. Sent from +1(415)606-3733 On Apr 8, 2011, at 12:57 AM, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> wrote:
I support the BC supporting the NCSG on this issue.
Philip ---------- i all,
i think Avri's on to something here. i agree with the points she's making.
http://www.circleid.com/posts/registrar_stakeholder_group_gnso_works_against... nn_multistakeholder/
i haven't been tracking our positions on these motions -- i'm hoping that we're supporting the conclusions of the WG and resisting the inclination of the Council to rewrite the WG's conclusions.
mikey
Sent from +1(415)606-3733 On Apr 8, 2011, at 12:57 AM, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> wrote:
I support the BC supporting the NCSG on this issue.
Philip ---------- i all,
i think Avri's on to something here. i agree with the points she's making.
http://www.circleid.com/posts/registrar_stakeholder_group_gnso_works_against... nn_multistakeholder/
i haven't been tracking our positions on these motions -- i'm hoping that we're supporting the conclusions of the WG and resisting the inclination of the Council to rewrite the WG's conclusions.
mikey
I am not an apologist for the registrars, but I think they are getting a bad rap here. The job of the Board - with the assistance of the stakeholders - is to set policy for the manner in which the business side of the DNS is carried out. It's the job of ICANN management to turn that policy into appropriate contract language under which various DNS business entities - registries, registrars, etc. operate. It's the function of the various review processes to see that the Board's guidance is followed effectively. I think most BC members have been involved in contract writing and negotiation. It is not improved by having folks who are not parties to the contract being in the room pretending they have a role. Avri and others of her persuasion start out from the assumption that the Board can not be trusted, so the non-commercial stakeholders must be active in every corporate activity. This is a recipe for ICANN failure at what it does. Death by a thousand bureaucratic knives is still death. If the BC has no confidence in the competence of the Board, then the remedy is to fire the Board, not to try to run ICANN by committee. - Mike At 8:10 AM -0700 4/8/11, Frederick Felman wrote:
What's the logic behind the registrars position? It doesn't seem to be represented in her article. So, while I understand her POV because it's well developed, I don't understand why the registrars are intransigent on this subject.
Sent from +1(415)606-3733
On Apr 8, 2011, at 12:57 AM, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> wrote:
I support the BC supporting the NCSG on this issue.
Philip ---------- i all,
i think Avri's on to something here. i agree with the points she's making.
http://www.circleid.com/posts/registrar_stakeholder_group_gnso_works_against... nn_multistakeholder/
i haven't been tracking our positions on these motions -- i'm hoping that we're supporting the conclusions of the WG and resisting the inclination of the Council to rewrite the WG's conclusions.
mikey
Sent from +1(415)606-3733
On Apr 8, 2011, at 12:57 AM, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> wrote:
I support the BC supporting the NCSG on this issue.
Philip ---------- i all,
i think Avri's on to something here. i agree with the points she's making.
http://www.circleid.com/posts/registrar_stakeholder_group_gnso_works_against... nn_multistakeholder/
i haven't been tracking our positions on these motions -- i'm hoping that we're supporting the conclusions of the WG and resisting the inclination of the Council to rewrite the WG's conclusions.
mikey
Thanks for flagging this, Mikey. Steve, does the BC have a position on this or guidance for our councilors that you can share with us? Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 9:12 AM To: bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] RAA contract participation hi all, i think Avri's on to something here. i agree with the points she's making. http://www.circleid.com/posts/registrar_stakeholder_group_gnso_works_against _icann_multistakeholder/ i haven't been tracking our positions on these motions -- i'm hoping that we're supporting the conclusions of the WG and resisting the inclination of the Council to rewrite the WG's conclusions. mikey - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
participants (5)
-
Frederick Felman -
Mike O'Connor -
Mike Roberts -
Philip Sheppard -
Ron Andruff