Re: [ga]Part II of: RE: Registrants Constituency

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Roberto and all,

  I can see a senerio where a truly open users constituency
and/or At Large where any and all willing users may become
members if they so choose, within the ICANN structure,
if they have either 2 reserved seats on the ICANN Bod
or can as one user, one vote, cast a ballot for any Bod
member from their region of the world.

Users and Registrants for obvious reasons, should have
been, and should be, the primary driving force as well
as determanent factor bodies for ALL ICANN policy,
practice, and contract terms for registries and registrars,
ect...  Had such been the case in ICANN's early development,
many of the serious problems with registrars such as
GoDaddy, RegistryFly, ect., would have never occured,
or had been corrected in short order and likely in much
more amicable ways.

 Alas, this ICANN Bod/staff as with previous ones
clear back to the Interim ICANN Bod have failed
to recognize this common wisdom...

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obediance 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