Re: [ga] First Draft of "Letter from Registrars Constituency to Stuart Lynn"

["erica" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>]

Roberto said:
>
 Specifically, and that was probably Joop's point, what is sorely missing is
> a vehicle to transmit the instances of the Individuals.
>
> Would the Registrars favour such Constituency, with the rationale that
> consumers could be partners in building fair rules of conduct, or would
they
> oppose it, maybe because they think that consumers and Registrars have
> opposing financial interest?

While the Registrars constituency has no formal position on the creation of
an individuals constituency, several  Registrars have already indicated
their willingness to work with demand-side interests to build a consumer
protection policy framework - or Code of Conduct.  The difficulty, as you
rightly note, is that there is no single body which can claim to represent
either demand-side interests as a whole or  the interests of individual
registrants in particular.  The IP, Non-Commercial, Business and ISP
constituencies each represent elements of demand- side interests and the
Registrars Constituency has already demonstrated a willingness to work
constructively with them on issues of mutual concern - such as IP
protection.  The problem here lies not with the Registrars Constituency, but
with the lack of  a credible consumer voice..    The At  Large review is one
attempt to look at this issue but I'm not sure that they can suggest any
real solution.

At the risk of drawing  flack and flame mail, my own view is that it would
be worth considering the creation of a Consumer/Registrant  Protection
Constituency -  rather than an individuals constituency.  While, in a sense
this is just a change of name, it also provides a much needed point of
focus - with the result that attention is shifted from the constituency
membership to to purpose of the constituency.  By emphasising the purpose,
it would be much easier to seek the funding required to support such a
constituency from potential donors (such as industry, government or other
public interest or consumer protection organisations)  and clarify
membership benefits.

erica.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <ga_list@hotmail.com>
To: <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>; <dannyyounger@cs.com>; <ga@dnso.org>;
<terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 11:50 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] First Draft of "Letter from Registrars Constituency to
Stuart Lynn"


> Erica Roberts wrote:
> >
> >Joop says:
> > > When can the registrants themselves have their say in how they would
> >like
> > > to be "protected"?
> > >
> >I agree that this is an important issue and I know that many registrars
> >would be interested in developing a code of conduct incorporating a
> >'customer bill of rights' or something of the sort.  We already have
> >protection for customer IP rights but this is just one aspect of the
> >consumer protection issue.  Others aspects include name portability
> >(otherwise known as transfers), change of registrant, and billing.
> >One way of moving the issue forward would be for the NC to put together a
> >cross constituency WG to identify consumer protection principles to be
> >incorporated into ICANN policy.  Alternatively, the GA or any
constituency
> >is free to draft a set of principles, and refer them to the NC for
> >consideration and endorsement by the DNSO.
> >
>
>
> The protection of IP rights has not been ensured via a cross-constituency
> WG, or a proposal to NC, but building a specific constituency.
> I would assume that similarly, while the options you outline are
reasonable
> second-best choice, the ideal solution would be to let the consumers (as a
> whole, not just subsets like Business, IP, NonCom) to be able to get
> organized in a Constituency.
> Specifically, and that was probably Joop's point, what is sorely missing
is
> a vehicle to transmit the instances of the Individuals.
>
> Would the Registrars favour such Constituency, with the rationale that
> consumers could be partners in building fair rules of conduct, or would
they
> oppose it, maybe because they think that consumers and Registrars have
> opposing financial interest?
> IMHO, the text at the origin of the thread is a clear example of a policy
> issue where an Individual DNH Constituency, would it have existed, could
> have supported the POV of the Registrars Constituency.
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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