Re: [ga] Registrants Constituency

[sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Danny et al.,

I'm willing to bet money that the one thing Roberto DOES NOT mean is a
Registrant's constituency.  What he's most likely proposing is another
byzantine layer within ICANN, something like the existing ombudsman
scenario which will not really benefit Registrants at all.  Same old, same
old...

Sotiris



> 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
>