RE: [ga] Re: Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory Committee

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have always felt that registrant representation would be good but I
have yet to see anyone come up with an effective way to make it happen
that results in broad representation of the registrant community.  I
know I don't have to tell people on this list that the registrant
population is hugely diverse and comes from all parts of the world.

As we get closer to GNSO improvements that will likely give increased
representation to individuals via the non-commercial stakeholder group,
this would be an excellent time for people to develop and propose a
workable way to create a registrant constituency that truly does
represent a broad base of non-commercial, individual gTLD registrants
around world.

Chuck Gomes 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Dominik Filipp
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:33 AM
To: Peter Dengate Thrush; Danny Younger
Cc: twomey@xxxxxxxxx; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; At-Large Worldwide
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory
Committee


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Peter Dengate Thrush
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 7:46 AM
To: Danny Younger
Cc: twomey@xxxxxxxxx; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; At-Large Worldwide
Subject: [ga] Re: Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory Committee

. . .

>> While ICANN has numerous advisory committees and supporting 
>> organizations whose responsibilities include putting forth the
general 
>> registrant interest as a part of their duties, the sad reality has 
>> been that immediate registrant concerns rarely find a dedicated 
>> organizational advocate to spearhead policy development activities.
>>
>> What is needed is an Advisory Body whose "sole focus"
>> is upon the needs of the general registrant community whose funds 
>> support and drive the ICANN process.
>>

> This may be a useful development.
> I should need to see it carefully distinguished, with advantages and 
> disadvantages laid out and contested between the current user groups 
> (Business and Non Commercial constituencies of GNSO), and the At Large

> I appreciate that registrants are not, as a group, necessarily a 
> subset of "user", or of At Large, as it includes the domaineers who 
> are registrants for trading and profit - is it their interests in 
> particular that you feel are not being served by the current 
> structure?

In fact, we need more than just a Registrant Advisory Committee. We need
a fully-fledged Registrant Constituency with all the voting power. Why?
For simple and logical reason. The Registrants stay on top of the
financial chain generating income for ICANN. Without the need for domain
names there would be no need for either Registries or Registrars or
ISPs. Thus Registrants, though indirectly, is the very first gear wheel
in the income machinery.
The Registrant Constituency should have been the very first constituency
established within the ICANN structures when ICANN was formed. And the
most influential as it indeed deserves. Without such representation
ICANN can barely hold its claim as being an advocate of all internet
users or stakeholders.

. . .


Regards

Dominik Filipp


> You can make this happen, and ICANN will benefit from such a 
> contribution.
>
> best regards,
> Danny Younger
>
>
>        
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ______________
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  http://tools.search.yahoo.com/ 
> newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

Peter Dengate Thrush
barrister@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx