Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency
In another mail, I said my full support to you and to Joop's response which
reshapes the DNSO plans.
But this does not address the "Consumer" word in the @large environment.
On 08:32 31/07/01, William S. Lovell said:
>I've seen you and Jefsey and Steven Heath (I think) and
>others wrestling over the name of the constituency, and
>again I see the alphabet soup a'cookin' on the stove. Why
>not KISS and just call it "Registrants?" That avoids the
>"consumers" problem, the question of whether a registrant
>is an owner or a holder, and a lot of others, methinks. :-)
Registring is to get the name of his domain in a TLD registry. As when you
come and settle in a new city you go and register yourself in different
offices (Post Office, Sheriff; Ambassy, Church, Town Hall, Taxes, Schools,
>(I'd even leave off "Domain Name" -- we're not involved
>with motor vehicles or anything else registrable in this DNSO.)
We may come back to that later (many other things are registered of no use
to the DNS : your name, address, accountant, techie, fax, tel, etc...)
Registring makes you a Registered one (usually on behalf of your familly),
not a Consumer. Every member of your familly will become a consumer by his
own when he buys goods in your new city.
Now, we see the confusion when calling us Users "Consumers", for three main
- when you come in a city, you become a Local Community Member. And you
are interested in many other things than buying. The word "Consumer" use
here would lock the Internet into a commercial system (what some would
love). I agree the WIPO has its say for .com, but I prefer churches to have
their say for .church and Museum Associations for .museum.
- the internet is not build by someone to do something. It is a consensus
by participants to relate together in using TCP/IP protocol set and the IP
addressing intefaced by the DNS. Every participant is both a user and a
content/service supplier. This is a social general relation support like a
language. We all TCP/IP as we use the roman characters. We are consumer on
the net and outside the net. On the net we spcifically are "Participants".
And we share in many decisions. "me/we"model.
- the third reason is that "consumer representation" is a structured
"industry" with organizations to represent the consumers' rights. If we
leave the confusion develop we will be excluded as participants by
organizations defending us as consumers. My proposition is to have a CAC
(Consomation Advisory Committe) created to interface Consumer Organizations
with the Internet world. They would be our ally and (as consomation is
subect to national rules) would probably organize with @large participants
in national Chapters with the NICs. This would provide a true open ICANN a
To sum up:
1. Registrant Constituency in the DNSO
2. @large are the Internet Participants
3. Consumers rights should be represented by a Consomation Advisory
>Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > At 12:06 29/07/2001 +0800, erica wrote:
> > >NAME:
> > >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)
> > Dear Erica,
> > 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
> > ripped-off.
> > ICANN is being set up as the wielder of power over Internet presence or
> > non-presence.
> > 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 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
>Any terms above that are not familiar to the reader may
>possibly be explained at:
>"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
>Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
>mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found at:
>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
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