ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-restruc-dt]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q5. In Section 3.1: Geographic distribution SG council members

  • To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>, "Gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q5. In Section 3.1: Geographic distribution SG council members
  • From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 12:36:44 -0400

Hi, Chuck 
I really do believe that there is an important qualitative difference between 
the two Houses in this regard. The contracts ICANN presents to registries and 
registrars do not vary by geographic region so far as I know. And the functions 
performed by a registry or registrar are quite similar, although there may be 
differences in their economic and social climate. Non-contracting parties on 
the other hand have an extremely diverse set of policy concerns that definitely 
do vary by geography. So I think the difference is justifiable. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> 
> Thanks Milton.  I would be okay if the exception clause applied to the
> Contracted House only.  The reason I proposed an exception for both was
> to attempt to treat both houses equitably.  But if it is not believed
> that there is a need for an exception for the Noncontracted/User house,
> then we should not include it.
> 
> Chuck
> 




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy