Re: [ga] First Draft of "Letter from Registrars Constituency to Stuart Lynn"
Roberto Gaetano wrote on 26.07.01, 15:50:59:
> 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.
On (somewhat) related news:
The .at (Austria ccTLD) registry has just chosen a
co-regulatory approach with a domain council of the
Internet Privatstiftung Austria (IPA). Its composition:
Someone from the registrars, an Internet users
association, an association of judges, an ISP, the
Ministry of Transport, an university college and the
telecommunications regulation authority. The domain
council decides on questions like the registration policy
or a possible dispute resolution policy.
There is a (German) article about this
with a quote by the head of the IPA:
"Although it is a small association we have decided
for [the Internet users association] VIBE, because
they have presented their own opinions on domain
policy for a long time", explains Haberler. One
could possibly ask the question of legitimacy, Haberler
concedes. "For the time being, it is a jump from zero
to one, we certainly have to continue the discussion
about the new structure." [my translation]
VIBE.AT is a member of the Global Internet Liberty
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html