[bc-gnso] RAA contract participation
Mike Roberts
mmr at darwin.ptvy.ca.us
Fri Apr 8 15:30:24 UTC 2011
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 at 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_ica
>> 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 at 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_ica
>> 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
>>
More information about the Bc-gnso
mailing list