RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] User/Non-Contracted Party vs Registrant

["Milton L Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Alan, 

My understanding was that you were not convinced that we even had a
consensus report to submit. Have you changed your position? 

 

I think most of us involved here would be happy to include "user" rather
than "registrant" but why should the group give you something you want
in the report if your ultimate position is that we have no consensus and
hence, no real report? I would say you would need to make a choice
whether you are part of the "white smoke" coalition and if you are not
it seems odd to be making demands about fundamental principles that
should go into the report. 

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:58 AM
To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-consensus-wg] User/Non-Contracted Party vs Registrant
Importance: High

 

I have said this a number of times, and we have agreed to it in
principle, but it never seems to make it into a draft.

The Board adopted a large part of the BGC report, and this (according to
Roberto Gaetano) INCLUDED the definition of what we are now calling
Users or Non-Contracted Parties. This definition is Registrant.

Now because most of us happen to own (lease?) domains, we are often
technically registrants. But that is not how we see ourselves in most of
our discussions. 

The current By-Laws talk about Commercial and Non-Commercial USERS. The
adopted BGC report changed that.

To make sure that the Board reverts to the current definition, it must
be EXPLICITLY in our report.  A simple statement such as "The definition
of the Non-Contracted House should be that of USER and NON-CONTRACTED
PARTY, and not the more restrictive "REGISTRANT".

Alan