[ga] Registrants Constituency

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Re:  "If we believe that one of the parties (the
consumers) are not protected enough, we need to find a
mechanism to protect them better by creating a
"consumer protection" body".

Roberto,

Please advise.  Does your comment signal a willingness
on the part of the Board Governance Committee or the
ICANN Board itself to consider the creation of a
Registrants Constituency within the GNSO? ... or are
you considering something else? 

regards,
Danny

 


--- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dominik,
> 
> > please read the letter sent by ICA to Paul Twomey
> > 
> >
>
http://www.internetcommerceassociation.org/the_ica_questions_i
> > cann_presi
> >
>
dent_on_registerfly_accreditation_and_remdedial_action
> > 
> > and notice the paragraph about the Ombudsman.
> > 
> 
> I know the letter. Incidentally, it is few days old,
> and some concerns have
> been addressed already by this document, sent the
> same day:
>
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/registerfly-notice-of-breach-21feb07.pdf
> .
> 
> However, back to the point of the Ombudsman, I think
> that we have different
> opinions on his/her role.
> To me, and this is only my opinion, although I
> believe that it is shared by
> several Directors, the Ombudsman's only role is to
> check whether the Board,
> or some entity underneath the Board's control, has
> been acting in violation
> of the procedures, or has otherwise been unfair to
> specific people.
> Nowhere it is written (nor meant, nor implied) that
> the Ombudsman should
> have "sent at least a warning letter to RegisterFly
> when this had become
> apparent".
> 
> 
> > 
> > Maybe an oportunity to redefine the role of the
> Ombudsman 
> > from scratch.
> > And all others involved in this case.
> 
> Maybe.
> If your point is that the rights of the registrants
> could be defended
> better, I am with you.
> I do believe that one of the problems we have is
> that internet consumers
> have insufficient protection. If in the physical
> world one of my rights is
> violated (let's say, somebody is parked in my
> driveway and does not allow me
> to get out), there is an authority who has
> jurisdiction and that can enforce
> the law (in the example, have the car towed away).
> However, if the same
> happens in the virtual world (let's say, I am the
> victim of a DoS attack,
> and can't perform my job) there is no obvious
> authority I can complain to
> and expect to take action. This is not rlated to the
> next problem, which is
> how to identify the attacker, it is just the primary
> action, which is some
> body who can say: "Yes, I hear, and it is my task to
> fix the problem".
> 
> My understanding is that you see this as the role of
> the Ombudsman. I do
> disagree. The Ombudsman has a role, that is rather
> the one of an auditor,
> who points out problems and makes recommendations,
> but remains in the field
> of "respect of the procedures". If we believe that
> one of the parties (the
> consumers) are not protected enough, we need to find
> a mechanism to protect
> them better by creating a "consumer protection"
> body, rather than to ask
> somebody that has an "above the parties" role to
> take a tilted approach to
> make up for a different problem.
> 
> In simple words, if in a match between to sport
> teams one is weaker, I can
> see the approach of strengthening the team as a
> healthy solution. To ask the
> referee to take the defense of the weaker team is,
> IMHO, an unhealthy
> solution, although it might be appealing to some
> (and used in practice quite
> often).
> 
> Regards,
> Roberto
> 
> 



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. 
Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html