RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Proposal for discussion July 17

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Out of the barn but maybe not out of the corral yet!  :)

Let me make it clear that all such groups should have a place at the
table.  I just believe that we should try to keep the horse in the
corral.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 2:04 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Proposal for discussion July 17
> 
> 
> Chuck:
> I think the horse has left the barn and you are talking about 
> closing the barn door a bit late. ICANN is deeply into 
> intellectual property protection, competition policy, 
> regulation of expression, as well as 'consumer protection.' 
> Interest groups and governments will use the most convenient 
> lever at their disposal to solve policy problems and if icann 
> appears to be the most convenient lever it will be used. 
> Those of us wanting ti limit ICANN's mission lost the battle in 1998.
> 
> Thus, to ask consumer protection advocates NOT to get 
> involved when everyone else is already pursuing whatever 
> agenda they can think can be addressed using icann's 
> authority seems a bit arbitrary. 
> 
> Consumer protectionn orgs are already part of NCUC and part of ALAC.
> (And they don't need a separate "constituency" to do so, 
> because consumer protection agendas are often closely related 
> to, e.g., privacy concerns, competition concerns, and 
> technical issues.) More will get involved. 
> 
> Indeed, I am getting one of those schizophrenia-inducing 
> mixed messages here. 
> 
> Gods of ICANN: "NCUC, you are insufficiently representative 
> go out and get more NGOs interested in domain name policy!" 
> NCUC: "OK, here's a bunch of consumer protection orgs that 
> want to get involved."
> Gods: "er, well, cough, that has nothing to do with what we do." 
> NCUC: "hmm, well, these customer groups complaining about 
> domain name prices that you set in your contracts or scam 
> registrar practices don't seem to think so. How about these 
> Iranian religious groups upset about Internet porn?" 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Gomes, Chuck I 
> > personally think that is reasonable but there might be 
> concerns that 
> > any such constituency would have a tendency to continually push for 
> > expansion of ICANN's mission.  That happens already so 
> maybe it is not 
> > a big deal and it is probably manageable.
> > 
> > Chuck
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> > > [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 1:35 PM
> > > To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Proposal for discussion July 17
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > But would people agree that this might be an acceptable 
> constituency 
> > > within an expanded NCSG (assuming there was such a 
> constituency that 
> > > wished to organize and get involved and that the NCSG was 
> created so 
> > > as to allow new constituencies to form etc... and 
> recognizing that 
> > > talking about how any SG is organized is defined as beyond our 
> > > remit.)
> > > 
> > > a.
> > > 
> > > On 16 Jul 2008, at 13:30, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Agreed Alan, as long as it involves issues within ICANN's
> > > mission.   
> > > > But it is not a good idea in my opinion to view ICANN
> > (and hence the
> > > > GNSO) as a consumer protection organization because it is
> > > not part of
> > > > their mission, they do not have the resources to do that
> > > and there are
> > > > organizations already in place to handle that.
> > > >
> > > > Chuck
> > > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
>