Re: [ga] Registrants Constituency

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The only problem there is jurisdiction and empowerment. A consumer 
protection body would have to have the power to act against those who harm 
consumers. If ICANN is involved in the process of creating this consumer 
protection entity it will have no teeth at all. ICANN favors IP interests 
and corporations over the needs and rights of individuals, shown by their 
past history. These entities are the same that historically water down any 
attempts at consumer protection. They capture ICANN, which captures the 
entity that is supposed to protect consumers is a likely scenario.

A consumer protection agency for the Internet will be difficult to create. 
It needs to be done. I agree with you. But it needs to be done outside of 
ICANN. Now you come to jurisdiction. How many countries will give this 
entity juridiction over their business interests? WIPO did this task, but it 
was a task to protect business interests and governments are more likely to 
support something that does that rather than something to protect consumers. 
In a perfect world, the opposite would be true.

Once the GA has a chair, moderator, I would like to see a WG formed to 
discuss consumer protection and how that can be achieved on the Internet. 
This is a time commitment I am willing to make in participating in such a 
WG.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
http://www.articlecontentprovider.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 10:46 AM
Subject: [ga] Registrants Constituency


> 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