Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] RE: For review - IRTP Part B Public Comment Announcement

["Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2 Sep 2009, at 17:25, Erdman, Kevin R. wrote:

> Michele,
>
> I think it would be worth considering who are the "real public," and  
> how to
> solicit their comments.  Typically, public comment periods are not  
> used by
> ordinary citizens but rather by the stakeholders most affected by  
> the issues
> involved with the subject matter of the public comment.
That's where we'll have to disagree (or maybe not?)

If I, as private individual or business owner,  register a domain name  
I have a stake, albeit a small one, in how the policy affects me  
personally
I'd also add that I think the lack of public input into the ICANN  
processes is part of the problem
At present there are only about about one thousand to one thousand  
five hundred people who participate in the processes that impact ALL  
users. (based on the average attendance at a public meeting, excluding  
ICANN staff and adjusting for people who participate)
I personally think this is due in no little part to perceptions and  
the language used does not help



> In this case, are
> the domain owners the relevant stakeholders?

Yes


>  Are the registries the relevant
> stakeholders?
Registries? Registrars? Or registrants? Or all three ? (I'd argue all  
three)
> In fairness to my colleagues at Pinsent Masons, publishers of Out- 
> law.com,
> they are fully aware of the ICANN process and explain it fairly well  
> in the
> full article (http://www.out-law.com/page-10328) even if the  
> headline may be
> a bit misleading.
How many people actually read articles in their entirety? Most of  
people skim headlines
> Assuming that domain holders are the relevant stakeholders, would the
> following be a suitable introduction?
>
> "The ruling body of ICANN relating to Domain Names (the Generic Names
> Supporting Organization, or GNSO) is asking for public comments on  
> issues
> relating to procedures for modifying registration information and
> transferring domain names between registers.  Specifically, comments  
> on
> establishing a new urgent return procedure for challenging potentially
> fraudulent or inappropriate domain name transfers or alterations,  
> and other
> procedures for preventing inappropriate or fraudulent changes in  
> domain name
> registrations, are requested from the domain name owning public.   
> The details
> of the issues being considered is provided below:"

I think that reads a lot better - the more people who can understand  
that ICANN is trying to address issues the better... no?
> _____________________________________________________________________________
> ___________________________
> Kevin R Erdman  T: 317.237.1029 | F: 317.237.8521 | C: 317.289.3934
> Intellectual Property, Internet, and Information Attorney,  
> Registered Patent
> Attorney
> BAKER & DANIELS LLP WWW.BAKERDANIELS.COM 300 N. MERIDIAN STREET,  
> SUITE 2700 |
> INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michele  
> Neylon ::
> Blacknight
> Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 11:00 AM
> To: James M. Bladel
> Cc: Marika Konings; Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] RE: For review - IRTP Part B Public  
> Comment
> Announcement
>
>
> James
>
> With all due respect while including a link to a glossary may help  
> it doesn't
> really address the core issue. It merely sidesteps it.
>
> While a "call for comments" may need to use precise technical and /  
> or legal
> terminology and jargon in its body, I strongly feel that a more  
> accessible
> introductory text may go a long way to helping us, as a group, get  
> input from
> the real public.
>
> In English speaking countries we read the text from left to right  
> and from
> top to bottom. So we will not, in general, read beyond the first few  
> lines if
> we aren't obligated to do so.
>
> For example, only last week Out-law.com published an article  
> entitled: "ICANN
> may help owners recover domain names after expiry". Anyone reading  
> that title
> would assume that ICANN was going to be doing something in that  
> area, whereas
> it actually referred to another public comment period. So how did a
> publication like Out-law.com end up with that perception? Presumably  
> they
> only had access to the information on the ICANN website and more  
> specifically
> the call for comments as published there (for the PEDNR WG).
>
>
> Regards
>
> Michele
>
> --
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions
> Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
> http://www.blacknight.com/
> http://blog.blacknight.com/
> http://mneylon.tel/
> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
> Locall: 1850 929 929
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
> -------------------------------
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business  
> Park,Sleaty
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>
> ----------------------------
> ATTENTION:
>
> To ensure compliance with applicable Internal Revenue Service  
> Regulations,
> we inform you that any tax advice contained in this electronic  
> message was
> not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the  
> purpose of
> avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code.
>
>
> This message and all its attachments are PRIVATE and may contain
> information that is CONFIDENTIAL and PRIVILEGED.
>
> If you received this message in error, please notify the sender by  
> reply
> e-mail and delete the message immediately.
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business  
Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845