[bc-gnso] RE: Important--Registry Registrar Separation issue
icann at leap.com
Fri Jul 31 19:36:20 UTC 2009
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Michael D. Palage wrote:
> You raise an interesting point. If there is a lack of consensus (divergence
> of opinions) shouldn't the BC then be arguing against the unilateral changes
> ICANN is proposing in removing these safeguards, i.e. no changes in the
> status quo until there is a consensus.
> I find it odd that ICANN is proposing changes that really were developed in
> exclusive consultation with the contracting parties. Does that not bother
> you in the slightest?
Hmmm, let's see:
1) Does the entire new gTLD process have a consensus?
2) Did the IRT have a consensus? Was it developed in consultation with
all GNSO constituencies?
3) ICANN unilaterally removed price caps from new gTLD contracts, a
radical change. Who did they consult on removing those safeguards?
I could go on and on, but it's Friday afternoon, and I think the
absurdity of this all is abundantly clear. When stakeholders don't
have any deep underlying philosophy and principles, but instead change
positions on a line-by-line basis (whatever's to their own advantage
at the time without any holistic view), it becomes a comedy, or
perhaps a tragedy, or both.
More information about the Bc-gnso