RE: [ga] 8. Registrants representation

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Roberto,

Thanks for the advice.  

You will recall our earlier email discussion (December 5, 2008) on the topic of 
a "house" for registrants that would preclude the need for 
commercial/non-commercial differentiation of registrants -- the approach that 
you now offer (while not a "house") does serve to alleviate some of my concerns.

Could I trouble you to get a "sense of the board" as to whether the alternative 
that you have outlined sufficiently comports with the Mission Clause in the 
Transitional NCSG Charter?  

If so, then I see no harm in moving forward as you suggest.

Thanks again, 
Danny


--- 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, 6:36 PM
> Danny,
> 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.
> Cheers,
> Roberto
> 
> 
> 
> > -----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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >       
>