ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [ga] 8. Registrants representation (Bravo Roberto)

  • To: "'Danny Younger'" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>, "'GA'" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Joop Teernstra'" <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [ga] 8. Registrants representation (Bravo Roberto)
  • From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 16:27:26 -0700 (PDT)

I think there are some things that need be hashed out here.  I suggest dropping 
any reference to "individual" in either of these two distinct groups.  How many 
names an entity or person has registered would seem irrelevant.  The concept of 
"family" should likewise be avoided as I would hate to try reading the Walton 
or Getty family spreadsheet. Not to mention on my natural mother's side -- the 
cappos would rather not talk family on the net.
It would be my suggestion to keep either or both as broad as possible until 
formed. Then they can discriminate out whoever they do not like.

--- On Thu, 10/1/09, Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [ga] 8. Registrants representation
To: "'Danny Younger'" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>, "'GA'" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
"'Joop Teernstra'" <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, October 1, 2009, 3:36 PM

While I applaud the initiative of starting a long awaited constituency for
registrants, I have to object on some of your remarks.
It is not the Board who "forces" to create separate constituencies. Since
the very beginning of the GNSO Review, as a matter of fact with the initial
LSE report some 4 years ago, the idea of having separate groups for
commercial and non commercial stakeholder has been introduced. We had
several public comment periods, and several entities working at the GNSO
review: the BGC, the GNSO Review WG, the SIC, the GNSO Implementation Group,
and I am probably even missing one or two. In all this time there has been
virtually no objection to this separation: quite the contrary, it has been
supported strongly, in particular by the non-commercial stakeholders.
The fact of having to separate registrants between commercial and
non-commercial is a simple logical consequence of that choice, supported
over the years, not a trick invented by the ugly and nasty Board.
This said, maybe I am missing something, or have an incorrect picture of the
reality, but when I am hearing "commercial individual registrants" my mind
goes to who has as profession to register names. Like, but not limited to,
domainers. And I wonder whether these people have interests that are similar
to the individuals who register a name for the family web site.
I would suggest an alternative. The charter of a future individual
non-commercial registrant constituency, or interest group, could be crafted
in a way to include, for instance, individual professionals like lawyers or
engineers. To be honest, I don't see much difference (and I don't see even a
simple way to make the difference without monitoring the web sites) between
a site that has the family pictures and a site that advertises an individual
professional activity in terms of the problems that both have versus UDRP,
registry and registrar policy, etc. Even more, a name can be acquired for a
purpose, but the purpose might change or be extended in time. What do we do
if a family site shows, together with the pictures of the latest holiday
trip, also the pictures of some objects that will be part of the next
Sunday's garage sale?
I am sure that the NCSG will accept an individual registrant constituency
that includes these kind of use of the name. We have to be reasonable. After
all, when we identify organizations as "non-commercial" we do not mean that
on their web sites every commercial activity is banned, but that the
organization itself does not have commercial profit as the purpose.
Just throwing in some ideas.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Danny Younger
> Sent: Monday, 28 September 2009 21:32
> To: GA; Joop Teernstra
> Subject: Re: [ga] 8. Registrants representation
> Joop,
> Re:  We could revive a hack-proof online signup procedure...
> In view of the fact that we have an uncaring board that is forcing us 
> to necessarily create two registrant constituencies (one for the 
> commercial house and one for the non-commercial house) instead of a 
> single registrant constituency for our community, could I trouble you 
> to set up two separate signup procedures, or a single sign-up that 
> differentiates between commercial and non-commercial?
> In the meantime, I'll get working on (1) a website design that will 
> simultaneously serve both the commercial and non-commercial 
> considerations;(2) Charter language, and (3) Petition language.
> best regards,
> Danny


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