Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Sotiris,
could you translate that into basic English please?  :-)
Is that very different from "representing the Registrants at the DNSO".
1- as you may know every DN is subject to the same contract, signed
     the same way by an unique individual name.
2- a support organisation is not a Justice Court. It is a cooperative
     effort to produce policy statements.
3- there are chances that the DNSO becomes an independent body
     with a contract with the ICANN. So whatever the result it will be
     no part of the ICANN.
Cheers.
Jefsey



On 21:55 02/08/01, Sotiris Sotiropoulos said:
>"William S. Lovell" wrote:
>
> > I think you need to clarify by saying something like "ICANN internal
> > policy formulation bodies and functions."
>
>In deference to your savvy Bill, how about the following arrangement:
>
>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 policy
>formulation bodies and functions of the ICANN."
>
>I think this wording makes it pretty clear that the policy "bodies and
>functions" referred to are those of the ICANN.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
> >
> >
> > Or "bodies and functions that formulate internal ICANN policies."
> >
> > Although "IRC" also = "Internal Revenue Code," if the constituency
> > is to be limited to natural persons, I reluctantly conclude also that the
> > Individual Registrants Constituency is about the only way to go.
> >
> > But we also have the IDNO going -- are there two of these going
> > now? Which one responds to the Board meeting concerning the
> > establishment of an Individuals Constituency? Are these two in
> > competition, are they the same thing, searching for a name? Are
> > both to co-exist?  The numerous posts on both subjects leave a
> > pretty hefty mishmash of confusion, methinks.
> >
> > Bill Lovell
> >
> > DPF wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:43:44 -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> >> <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >erica wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Can we move on to discuss the broad objectives of the proposed
> >> constituency
> >> >> and funding issues?
> >> >
> >> >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."
> >>
> >> I know I shouldn't do too many "me too"posts but what Sotiris said
> >> works for me.
> >>
> >> DPF
> >> --
> >> david@farrar.com
> >> ICQ 29964527
> >> --
> >> 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
> >
> > --
> > 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

--
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