Re: [ga] Registrants Constituency

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

sotiris and all,

  Sad to say, I believe Sotiris is likely correct here given Roberto's
history regarding CORE.  Other than a terrorist organization, CORE
is one of the most ill conceived organizations I have come across
in my lifetime...  There enthusiasm in engendering and conducting
"Information Warfare" is testament to it's ill conception and behavior..
So yes, byzantine indeed.

sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> 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
> >

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k 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
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827