RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] User/Non-Contracted Party vs Registrant
Just for the record, at the time the call ended, in my mind, we were not particularly close and it was unclear if the remaining chasms could be closed in 24 hours. I believe I or someone used the term grey smoke at the time. Others on the call felt similarly, and there were even a few black smoke people (on the theory that grey smoke wasn't allowed). Again to be clear, I am pleased and admittedly pleasantly surprised at how far we have come. Alan At 25/07/2008 03:41 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: Alan, I was trying to clarify your position.The basis for my statement was your own concluding statement yesterday, which indicated that you did not believe we had reached a "white smoke" situation. If you're a party to the agreement, that's fine. Let's not worry about it. But far from attacking you, I was simply taking seriously what you said during the conference call.-----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx on behalf of Alan Greenberg Sent: Fri 7/25/2008 1:08 PM To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] User/Non-Contracted Party vs Registrant Milton, I really do not understand the basis for your first statement. We have all been expressing problems we had with various items, and compromising on others. I do not recall walking away from this discussion and do not understand where your "understanding" came from. And I was not raising the user vs registrant as a negotiating point or something that I wanted "given" to me. I prefaced this as something that I thought we had agreed to in principle, but had not been reflected in the draft (which was supposed to have been cut off within minutes). My message was a tickler to remind those who were drafting an almost unanimous agreement to include it. If you agree with it, fine. If you disagree, go ahead and say so. But there is no reason to attack me. Alan At 25/07/2008 11:04 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >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>mailto:owner-gnso-consen sus-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
|