Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

[Eric Dierker <eric@HI-TEK.COM>]

Dear Contributors,

It would appear that "Registrants" would be all inclusive and that this would be good to
get the constituency movement started.  I would ask that we step back and look at a larger
several year configuration.  The more inclusive we make this constituency the easier for a
spin off to be created without all of this external process. Also inclusivity allows for
far broader funding allocations.

Two most important and often over looked goals are the need for openness and transparency
and bottoms up stakeholder representativeness.  As a self proclaimed dot commoner polywog I
believe that these are best served by moving forward with "Registrants" in it's all
inclusive model.

As for being a technical versus political policy body,  I ask for one who proclaims the
role of the DNSO to be strictly technical in it's policy considerations to cite just one
phrase in one document that proclaims this to be the case. And then I would ask them if not
the DNSO who?

(on behalf of us small fry who cannot adequately manipulate such important issues I thank
all of you for keeping us in mind when determining such weighty matters)

Sincerely,
Eric

"William S. Lovell" wrote:

> 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

--
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