Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Actually Bill, it puts me in the position of ratifying the claim of the rightful
> policy making body *within* ICANN, by that I mean the DNSO and its NC, along with the
> rowdy bunch in the GA.  All of which, I think, is not so far from what the ICANN
> Bylaws and all the rest of the verbiage/claptrap <take your pick> purport anyway...

Which I assumed to be your intent, so I'm merely suggesting that you stick in a word
or two about "*within* ICANN" so that the interpretation that I tacked onto it will not
be adopted.  And  even there I must point out an unhappy truth: the DNSO and NC,
etc., do not "make" policy -- they recommend.

And while we're on the subject, I think I'd follow Joop and do the "super-constituency"
bit -- just "Registrants" -- no distinction between big, little, mom & pop, 13 yr old
Susie,
the hawkers of nostrums and placebos, "BUY NOW," and all that.  The common thread
is that the registrant has registered a domain name and is concerned over what might
happen next (as Roeland Meyer puts it, "the UDRP?"), and that common denominator
is the same, whatever may be the use to which the domain name is put. That would
very precisely define the purpose and scope of interest of the constituency, and since
it directly affects domain names, and only domain names, there can be no question
that it lies within the ambit of the DNSO and the GA.

> If we're going to get the ship to harbour, we're going to have to navigate Bill.
> Choose your point of reference folks. ("astronaut" = starsailor Gk., was always one
> of my favourite concepts as a child.  There's a whole cybersky to choose from...)

(Can anyone out there tell me what the above means?  Sotiris, you're getting to be
as bad as Jefsey and Eric! HAHAHAHA!)

Bill Lovell

>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>                 ...dotophile
>
> "William S. Lovell" wrote:
>
> > Which puts you in the position of ratifying ICANN's claim to be
> > a policy making rather than a technical coordinating body, does
> > it not?
> >
> > Bill Lovell
> >
> > Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >
> > > At 09:43 31/07/2001 -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> > >
> > > >A rough blanket statement of the broad objectives of the Individual
> > > >Registrants
> > > >Constituency (IRC) might be as follows:
> > > >
> > > >"Mission:  To effect and ensure the recognition, representation, and input of
> > > >Individual Registrants of Domain Names as bona fide stakeholders in the Domain
> > > >Name System (DNS), through an established and direct voice in all ICANN policy
> > > >formulation bodies and functions."
> > >
> > > YES to that.
> >
> > --
> > Any terms above that are not familiar to the reader may
> > possibly be explained at:
> > "WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
> > GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
> > Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
> > mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found at:
> > http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
Any terms above that are not familiar to the reader may
possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found 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