[NA-Discuss] registrant advisory committee

[Danny Younger]

Hello Evan,

Thanks for the input, but allow me to note that your
observations, while logical, unfortunately are not
correct.

If you are making the claim that registrants are
adequately represented by the BC and the NCUC in the
GNSO, then unfortunately this claim is not borne out
by the facts.

You will recall that ICANN CEO Paul Twomey put forward
a well-publicized call for input regarding registrant
protections in the wake of the RegisterFly debacle.  A
public comment forum was established that allowed for
input on revisions to the Registrar Accreditation
Agreement.  

Neither the BC nor the NCUC provided any comments to
this forum -- none at all -- that pretty much sums up
the degree of interest they have in protecting the
general registrant community.

best regards,
Danny



--- Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:

> Hello all,
> 
> So far as I can tell, registrants are already
> 'represented'  by two
> existing ICANN constituencies;
> for-profits through the Business Constituency and
> non-profits through
> NCUC. Certainly, looking through things such as the
> two above groups'
> responses to the Domain Tasting issue, they
> certainly took the point of
> view of those two groups.
> 
> This means, the remaining "unrepresented" group is
> the that of
> "individual" registrants, who probably don't share
> much interest in
> common with those who -- to use ICANN lingo --
> "monetize" domains
> through a number of tactics, many of which do no
> serve the public good.
> 
> I've certainly taken to heart comments about mission
> bloat of ICANN and,
> indeed, general bloat. Could it not be said that the
> interest-group of
> "individual registrants is, indeed, a subgroup of
> At-Large that shares
> most of ALAC's interests but has some additional
> ones of its own? Is
> this group -- which probably represents a
> single-digit percentage of
> total domain registrations -- really in need of a
> whole separate ICANN
> infrastructure?
> 
> I'd like to offer a counter-proposal to Danny's, one
> that's easier to
> implement and serves a wider audience. It'd like to
> suggest a permanent
> Working Group of ALAC devoted to registrant issues,
> led by Danny. That
> could be implemented quickly, and provide a source
> for policy and
> resources that could be very valuable to the whole
> community, including
> Internet users who are potential registrants. While
> not everyone in the
> world cares about Registerfly, ALAC _should_ care
> about the manner in
> which non-corporate registrants are treated by all
> registrars and
> registries be the gTLDs or ccTLDs. Personal
> registrants probably domain
> tasting, while corporate registrants are -- almost
> by definition -- the
> only group that would prefer retaining the practice.
> 
> Anyway, I'll suggest that as something to consider.
> 
> - Evan
> 
> 
> ------
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at
> https://st.icann.org/naralo/
> ------
> 



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ