RE: [ga] Registrants Constituency

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

Sotiris,

I respect your opinion, but to be honest I believe that you are being
unfair.
I tried my best over the years, in different scenarios, to bring forward the
needs of the individuals and the registrants.
I accept the blame for not having been successfull, but not the allegation
that this is not an objective that I will pursue.

Regards,
Roberto


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: 28 February 2007 17:32
> To: Danny Younger
> Cc: Roberto Gaetano; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ga] Registrants Constituency
> 
> 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-21feb
> > 07.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
> >
>