[At-Large] Comments on GNSO improvements

[Blogs.pn]

Or have a user constituency AND a registrants constituency where you cannot 
be a member of both.

Chris McElroy

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
To: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto at icann.org>; "'Wendy Seltzer'" 
<wendy at seltzer.com>; "'At-Large writ small'" <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 10:56 AM
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
>