Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Jamie,
IMHO we may consider things two ways.

Either to have the ICANN to extend to address such problems,
or the ICANN to redeem down to its scope and these problems
either to disapear or to addressed by who is competent.

Handful of TLD? Problem only created by iCANN.

UDRP?  Problem created to protect the ICANN from being involved.
              NeuLevel case shows that it does not work
              My protection as a TM Holder is poorly protected. Other
              easier and simpler arbitration solutions.

Safe-Harbor. Out of ICANN scope - unless it controls NSA/Fincen
                    and Echelon.

These problems are certainly interesting. But the ICANN IMHO is
incompetent. However the ICANN is an ideal forum to help these
problems to be discussed under technical feasiblity control.

This is why I propose a Consumation Advisory Committee (CAC)
to be created to gather organizations like yours from every country
- as a counterpart or a complement to the GAC. But the role of the
ICANN would be pure hosting and international secretariat provision.

Jefsey

On 01:59 06/08/01, James Love said:
>Kent, your comment was pretty unfair, IMO.  The problem is the other way
>around. ICANN itself has set out an agenda which is much more than
>technical.  Why do we have a handful of TLDs?  Technical problems?   Why
>do we have a UDRP?  Technical issues?   Why do we have anti-privacy
>policies?  Technical issues?  When you make policy decisions, then
>people care who has the power, and how they are selected.
>
>Jamie

--
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