RE: [ispcp] FW: Next steps re GNSO restructuring v3

[<tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx>]

Thank you for this comment.  I think some of the difficulties do come
down to language, but we will do our best to accommodate your concern
and feed this in to the discussion.

Best Regards

Tony 

-----Original Message-----
From: MARUYAMA Naomasa [mailto:maruyama@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 21 April 2008 14:41
To: Holmes,AR,Tony,DMF R
Cc: ispcp@xxxxxxxxx; KnobenW@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ispcp] FW: Next steps re GNSO restructuring v3

>Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:19:02 +0100
>From: <tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx>

>Dear ISPCP colleagues
>
>Attached is the latest draft of the document on GNSO restructuring that

>has been prepared by members of the ISPCP, BC and IPC. In addition it

Thanks, Tony.  This Masa Maruyama with JPNIC.  Here is my comment.

  I basically support the idea of balancing three groups.  In this
message I would like to suggest an improvement relating to the
description for our group "Commercial interest group".

  As I am not a native English speaker, I am not sure this label
"Commercial interest group" might sound, but my concern is that this
naming might cause a confusion that incentive for members in this group
to participate in GNSO activities is to seak commercial gain.
The reality is that, for members in the "Contract parity, domain name
registration is their business and their GNSO activities are directly
connected to their commercial gain while our activities are not.  For us
in the "Commercial interest group", our businesses are not domain name
registration itself but have some relation to it, and because of such
relation, we need sound evolution of the domain name market which will
not harm our own businesses.  That is, as I understand, our incentive to
participate in GNSO activities, and I think this point should be
included in the description of our group.  As I am not a native English
speaker, I have no self confidence in finding good expression for this,
but one phrase I can think of is the following:

    Parties who are in charge of keeping integrity of economies
    surrounding domain name business

I think this expression is slightly wider than the following in the
current draft:

    The group should be unified entity representative broadly of
    commercial interests and open to commercially-oriented
    organisations and individuals such as consultants.

To speak of my organization JPNIC, it is a not-for-profit organization
consists of ISPs, and its objective is to seek sound evolution of the
society by means of the Internet, not to seek commercial gain of itself
nor our members.  Because of this situation, the difference between
above two descriptions is rather significant for us.

----
(Mr.) NaoMASA Maruyama
Japan Network Information Center(JPNIC)