Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency
I think you/we should give up all this.
The general "correct" thinking seems to be bound to consider Internet
participants as "consumers". A consumer means a product and obvsiously the
AmerICANN would be the producer and the regulator. A consumer means a
receiver and not a producer what every Internet partisicpant is first.
Such a scheme is so much foreign to the mission of the AmerICANN and to
nature and the use of the true Internet (I do not consider its e-legal
version by Louis Touton nor the niche it is for VeriSign) that I think we
should let it develop untill the whole operation collapses.
Any effort to support an AmerICANN which should probably be a compromise
between the three options proposed by the ALSC
http://www.atlargestudy.org/template.shtml will be a failure because it
will have no coherence with any identified purpose. It would only help
delaying a necessary refundation.
On 07:01 29/07/01, Joop Teernstra said:
>At 12:06 29/07/2001 +0800, erica wrote:
>>If there is general agreement that we need a constituency whose job is to
>>ensure that the interests of consumers of domain names (Registrants)
>>interests are protected, then its a good idea to ensure that's reflected in
>>the name: ie. Lets call the proposed new constituency the
>>Consumer/Registrants Protection Constituency (C/RPC)
>Whilst I agree with some of your observations, I I have a problem seeing
>Domain Name Registrants as consumers.
>An Individual Registrant does not register a Domain Name to consume it.
>One registers it to own it (or to hold it, if you wish), and to build it
>up as an asset or an Internet presence.
>Or perhaps to otherwise exercise rights normally associated with the
>ownership of an asset.
>There is much more involved than simply protecting consumers against being
>ICANN is being set up as the wielder of power over Internet presence or
>In order to make the constituency really representative in ICANN , one
>wants a constituency of the Holders/Owners themselves, as Individual Human
>beings (who as content providers have concerns way beyond those of mere
>consumers), not as a constituency of "protectors" or organizations that
>purport to protect.
>These, if truly non-commercial, should be represented in the NCDNHC.
>For the IDNH, the challenge is the construction of membership driven
>institutions, that can truly scale.
>This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
>Send mail to email@example.com 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 firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html