[ga] RE: Registrants Constituency

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

Danny,

I mean two things.

On one hand, the voice of the registrants in the GNSO (and I want to stress
"registrants" vs. "users", simply because past experience has shown that
"individual users" will not fly).
There is now a debate, that I believe will become intense in Lisbon, about
the GNSO review. I assume you all are familiar with the LSE report, and
there is a serious criticism in the way users at large are represented. This
includes the representativity criteria of some constituencies, and proposals
to revise the constituency system.
All considered, I am really sorry for the individual registrants that are
suffering damages because of the Registerfly case, but maybe this situation
at this moment can help building the case for a different representation
mechanism.

On the other hand, I have to say loud and clear that I do not see the
primary function of a registrants constituency as being a "consumer
protection body". The constituency could, and should, discuss about
policies, but the consumer protection is a different thing, it implies to
bring the cases to the public opinion, and to advocate for the consumer
rights. I do believe that this is better done in the same way that consumer
protection is done in all other fields: with ad-hoc organizations that
operate in the marketplace. The problem is that a lot of consumer protection
organizations that I have contacted about 2-3 years ago, in the framework of
participation to ALAC as ALSes, have replied that consumers have bigger
problems than domain names registration. I do believe that times are
changing, and consumer protection agencies are becoming more aware that the
loss of a domain name is not just a matter of a few bucks, but a matter of
life or death of the business, so I am confident that over time we will
achieve something in this direction as well.

Cheers,
Roberto 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 28 February 2007 16:46
> To: Roberto Gaetano
> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: 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-brea
> ch-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