ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [ga] 8. Registrants representation

  • To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Danny Younger'" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>, "'GA'" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] 8. Registrants representation
  • From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:46:04 +1300


I have objected to the involuntary classification of registrants even since I first petitioned the Board for a "Domain Name Owners' (registrants) constituency. A typical individual registrant can have a number of domains, some commercial, some not or some hybrid. De typical "registrant interests" vis-a-vis the registrars and TLD registries are the same.

Please give me examples of where those interests would diverge enough to warrant a divided constituency.

Why not let registrants who sign up for the constituency decide for themselves as what they like to sign up? Give them three options. Commercial, non-comm or "undetermined". The majority gets the constituency effort.


----- Original Message ----- From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx> To: "'Danny Younger'" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>; "'GA'" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "'Joop Teernstra'" <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 11:36 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] 8. Registrants representation

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


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,

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