RE: [ga] RE: Registrants Constituency

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

I imagine that yours is a rhetoric questions, but I will answer anyhow.

The matter is indeed on the table as part of the GNSO review.
The decision of the Board will be according to the will of the majority of
the Directors.

Did I really tell you something you did not know? ;>)

Cheers,
Roberto


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Danny Younger
> Sent: 05 March 2007 13:56
> To: Roberto Gaetano; 'Karl Auerbach'
> Cc: 'Danny Younger'; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ga] RE: Registrants Constituency
> 
> Roberto,
> 
> Re:  "we have already tremendous problems in building a 
> presence for registrants"
> 
> Some clarification is in order.  Perhaps you could explain 
> what these problems are and why they are so insurmountable 
> that the Board can't act on its own initiative and simply 
> establish a registrants constituency as part of the GNSO 
> restructuring.  
> 
> regards,
> Danny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Karl,
> > 
> > Just to clarify my point.
> > I am not arguing that there should not be a place in the GNSO for 
> > "normal"
> > users (i.e. non-registrants). I am only saying that if we 
> have already 
> > tremendous problems in building a presence for registrants, 
> it might 
> > be a useless waste of resources to try to get to the wider 
> objective 
> > (for the time being).
> > If you want to put it this way, it is not a matter of 
> principle, it is 
> > a matter of opportunity.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Roberto
> >  
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: 05 March 2007 11:35
> > > To: Roberto Gaetano
> > > Cc: 'Danny Younger'; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Registrants Constituency
> > > 
> > > Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 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).
> > > 
> > > I don't agree.
> > > 
> > > The intellectual property industry gets a very big
> > seat in
> > > ICANN but mere possession of a trademark has
> > nothing to do
> > > with whether the holder of the mark has acquired a
> > domain name or not.
> > > 
> > > Normal internet users - you and I - are just as
> > affected by
> > > domain names as is the owner of a trademark.  Just
> > like a
> > > trademark, our names can be transgressed, our
> > reputations can
> > > be besmirched and diluted.  The only difference is
> > that that
> > > we are flesh and blood people rather than some
> > legal
> > > abstraction in the form of a corporate owner of a
> > trademark.
> > > 
> > > So why do the trademark owners get the ICANN red
> > carpet
> > > treatment and the individual users of the internet
> > get the shaft?
> > > 
> > > Why are our needs written off as "will not fly"
> > while ICANN
> > > accepts the assertions of the intellectual
> > property
> > > protection industry without question?
> > > 
> > > Vint Cerf likes to say "The Internet is for
> > Everyone".  Seems
> > > that that phrase falls flat in the world of ICANN.
> > > 
> > > ICANN is incorporated as a "public benefit"
> > corporation.  It
> > > is inconsistent with its legal status for ICANN to
> > exclude
> > > the public from its decision making processes,
> > while at the
> > > same time elevating private commercial interests.
> > > 
> > > 		--karl--
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> ______________________________________________________________
> ______________________
> Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
> in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
> http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367