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

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dominik and all,

  Agree here as well.  As is well known, our members have
been advocating for a Independent registrants constituency
for several years.  In fact, we like to consider our organization
as such.  We are not however part of the ICANN constituency
structure.  But I personally fairly sure either our organization
could be incorporated into the ICANN Constituency structure/GNSO
or would give serious consideration to the formation of such as long
as the rules for membership are not overly restrictive.  Of course
that is where the rubber meets the road so to speak...

  Further the GA is a good place to for the time being, discuss
and determine the details of such a Independent Registrants Constituency.

Dominik Filipp wrote:

> Chuck,
>
> agreed on all counts here. The Registrant Constituency is definitely the
> goal worth pursuing.
> As regards the details, we could start discussing this here on the GA
> and gain some support/knowledge from other people.
>
> Dominik
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 11:26 PM
> To: Dominik Filipp; Peter Dengate Thrush; Danny Younger
> Cc: twomey@xxxxxxxxx; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; At-Large Worldwide
> Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory
> Committee
>
> 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

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My Phone: 214-244-4827