[At-Large] Comments on GNSO improvements

[Brendler, Beau]

Alan --

Sounds like a realistic approach. I'd argue for just "user," as
"registrant" is just another jargon term that confuses people.

Beau Brendler 

-----Original Message-----
From: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan
Greenberg
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 10:56 AM
To: Roberto Gaetano; 'Wendy Seltzer'; 'At-Large writ small'
Subject: Re: [At-Large] Comments on GNSO improvements

As I have said before, the current BGC proposal calls to a
non-commercial REGISTRANT stakeholder group. If one just replaced the
word REGISTRANT with USER or REGISTRANT/USER, there is an opportunity
for one or more groups representing users to coalesce and join this
stakeholder group. There is no need at this stage to address how the one
of more user groups are formed or who they represent. Just remove the
requirement that currently requires members to solely represent
registrants.

I am not arguing for or against other plans - I am just pointing out
that with one minor wording change, the current BGC proposal would allow
the participation of users in the GNSO.

Alan

At 09/04/2008 08:35 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>Wendy:
>
> >
> > I'd say "Internet Users, including those who are not registrants of 
> > domain names, depend on the domain name system to locate and stably 
> > identify Internet resources.  Those users should be included in the 
> > "Non-Contracting Parties" group."
>
>This is something that the GNSO Review WG has discussed.
>Personally, I don't see anything against this, in principle, but I 
>would be carful in how we present it for implementation. We have the 
>status quo, we have one step forward (the inclusion of individual 
>registrants in the non-contractual stakeholder group), and two steps 
>forward (the inclusion of all individuals in a stakeholder group to be 
>defined). If to go two steps forward meand that for the time being, 
>until we find the perfect solution, we stay with the status quo, I 
>don't think we are providing a good service to the internet community.
>
>Cheers,
>Roberto

_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann
.org

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

***
Scanned