Re: [bc-gnso] RAA contract participation

["Marilyn Cade " <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The BC shld support itself/not the NCSG/NCUC. Do we have legitimate concerns 
abt when consultation w users shld apply to contractual terms? I can think of 
some, issues such as udrp/whois, accountability... But those cld be 
accomplished via public comment processes. Reasonable consultations: avoiding 
that some registrars do use this as "hell, no, we won't go" discussions. 

We shld understand other CSG and ALAC views. Not support NCSG/NCUC, which will 
be perhaps "stronger" than what busoness needs. 
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Roberts <mmr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 15:30:24 
To: <Frederick.Felman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
Cc: <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RAA contract participation

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@xxxxxx> 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@xxxxxx> 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
>>