Re: [ga] NC BS

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Phillip and all assembly members,

  I cannot speak for Joop with regard to your response to him and
the quote from Joop that you provided and are seemingly centered on
in your response.  But I DO speak for the interests of a fairly large
block or number of stakeholders/users that happen to share
this particular concern of Joops that you provided.
( See more specific comments/answers/observations below )

Philip Sheppard wrote:

>    Joop,
> you say that in:
> "my experience with the people who have seriously participated"
> ..the.. "majority of individuals currently wishing to be engaged in
> ICANN and outside of the constituency structure are not consumers but
> producers of content, directly related to their Domain" ...with a
> subsequent "highly personal interest in a NAME, an identifier of
> themselves or their on-line business".
>
> But you reject the business constituency (BC) as not being able to
> represent their interests because it is "captured by big corporates".

  And the BC mostly is made up of large business entities...

>
>
> Forgive me if you have explained this before but I would like to know
> which values of the BC and positions adopted to date by the BC are not
> shared by such content-producing individuals who run businesses.
>
> Mission/values of the BC
> The core of the BC mission is to ensure that:
>   - ICANN policy positions are consistent with the development of
> business via an Internet that is stable, secure and reliable while
> promoting consumer confidence,
>   - ICANN policy positions derive from broad stakeholder participation
> in a common forum for suppliers and users.

  The problem here that our INEGroup members along with a growing number

of the stakeholders/usres have put forth is that there is no such common

forum where suppliers and users can on a level playing field participate

presently that is recognized by the BC or the ICANN BoD and staff...

>
>
> Is this mission NOT shared by individuals who run businesses ?

  No it is not in it's entirety as I indicate above...

>
>
> Positions of the BC (edits from some published papers)
> 1. New names and trademarks
>
> The BC support an expansion in the gtLD name space. Do individuals not
> support this ?

  Yes individual businesses or stakeholders/users broadly support this
as long
as it is not restricted and any way.  That however is not the present
situation
which than leads to instability as we have seen sense MdR 2000.

>
> The BC seeks a way : "to meet the global desire for more names and
> reduce the potential for consumer fraud and confusion as a result of
> bad faith use of trademarks"...

  This is stated in such a way as to be an oxymoron or a contradiction
inclusive
of itself.

> "Verify that applications for domain names do not infringe the rights
> of holders of intellectual property, trade marks or brand names of
> existing entities, whether commercial, non-commercial or individual."
> Do individuals want bad faith use of the names they use to trade ?

  Again the answer really lies in what is considered or appropriate on a
global
scope to be "Bad Faith" in this context.

>
>
> The BC supports the UDRP and an efficient WhoIs?  Are these uniquely
> the concern of big business ?

  Yes they are  to the extent of what precisely (Details) as to what an
efficient
WhoIs, is, and what is a good UDRP is.  We have neither now, and from
what
the BC has seemingly been supporting does not meet many of the criterion

that our members set forth some time ago now...

>
>
> 2. Dot org
> The BC "believes that an entity independent of VeriSign and free of
> all current and future contractual relations with VeriSign should
> become the dot org registry".

  Yes and this also is not clear enough.  The ORG TF recommended that
perhaps a non-profit entity would be the best or only consideration
for the type or entity that should take over the .ORG registry.

>
> "Dot org should remain an unrestricted domain but be marketed as a
> space for organisations."

  Yet the BC does not specifically define what they consider an
"Organization".
Hence this also in not clear and therefore leaves it open to
interpretation
that may or may not apply in any number of potential registrations
currently
or future registrations.

>
> "Since the dot org registry will be a monopoly, consideration should
> be given to the advantages of a not-for-profit model."
> Are we so divergent here ?

  Not overly divergent in our members view here, no...

>
>
> 3. At-large
> The BC supports the concept.  Are we divergent here ?

  To this limited extent, in our members view, no.  However
the BC through it's chair has clearly stated that At-Large members
should have no decision making ability on policy issues.  This is
basically why our members do not support the BC's view.

>
>
> If there is divergence, lets identify it, and rationalise it.
>
> Is divergence anything more than an untested question over bad faith
> use of trademarks and business names ? If so, which individual
> producer wants bad faith use of their own business name on the
> internet?

  Again Bad Faith in accordance with what/whom and which governments
definition.

>
>
> Philip

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html