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>, "'Joop Teernstra'" <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [ga] 8. Registrants representation
  • From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 15:35:52 -0500 (GMT-05:00)

Roberto and all,

  With all due respect I disagree that there is now, or ever
was strong or even weak support for seperating stakeholders
into pigion holed Constituency groups as you suggest.  As a
member of several of the working groups you mention and/or
eluded to, the majority of the remarks and comments of same
do not reflect your statement below.  Sorry if such offends
you in any way...

-----Original Message-----
>From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Oct 1, 2009 5:36 PM
>To: 'Danny Younger' <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>, 'GA' <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 'Joop 
>Teernstra' <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>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
>> 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


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

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