FW: [registrars] Registrar Statement

[Marcus Faure]

Hi,

never intended to be unfriendly..
How would you think such a consensus might look like? Basically, I
belive that there is no "one size fits all" policy for sponsored and
unsponsored TLDs. Yes, we need more oversight when a 80%+ market force
wants to introduce new policies, but no, ICANN will not be able to
decide within a reasonable timeframe how a .berlin might preassign
streetname second level domains, not even speaking of the new
approaches .tel takes. sTLDs will have much more problems with GNSO
oversight than unrestricted TLDs. When GNSO policy enforcement becomes
reality, sTLDs will stall and will have a much harder time to survive,
and we all know the current registration numbers in that area. Do we
want new TLDs or not? I think we agreed to have them. We should not
give them a bad start.
There are other ways for policymaking in sTLDs. Community-based
sponsors can have a community-based policy advisery board. .berlin
managed to gather some prominent people for their proposed PAB. There
is certainly more competence inside the community than on the outside.

That being said, I am happy to discuss consensus positions. However we
can not agree with more burdens for sTLDs when at the same time the
some gTLSs do what they want. 

Yours,
Marcus


> After discussing with the other Task Force representatives, the
> amendment offered by Marcus is unfriendly.  With that said, I would be
> happy to discuss the issue to see if there is any room for a consensus
> position.  Thanks.  Jon  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert F. Connelly
> Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 3:46 PM
> To: Registrars Constituency
> Subject: Re: FW: [registrars] Registrar Statement
> 
> At 12:25 PM 4/21/06, Nevett, Jonathon wrote:
> >Bob:
> >
> >As we have the three endorsements, is it fair to assume that the 14 day
> 
> >clock is ticking?
> 
> Dear Jon:  Oh, yes, the clock is ticking.  Your motion as modified to 
> accommodate one friendly amendment is before the "house".
> 
> I believe that there is one additional amendment which has not yet been 
> classified as either friendly or unfriendly.
> 
> Regards, BobC
> 
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >Jon
> 
>