Re: [ga] 8. Registrants representation

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

Joop and all,

  Here we agree, and I am happy to say so for many historical
reasons which I will not rehash.  Joop's essentially on the
correct path IMO and from INEGroups members opinion.  

-----Original Message-----
>From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Oct 1, 2009 10:46 PM
>To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>, 'Danny Younger' 
><dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>, 'GA' <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [ga] 8. Registrants representation
>
>
>Roberto,
>
>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.
>
>Joop
>
>----- 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
>
>
>> 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

Regards,

Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k 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
Phone: 214-244-4827