RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] object to proposal to change name of Non-Contracting Parties House

["Tony Holmes" <tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim
 Its certainly been clear to me that some parties who look at ICANNs policy
development process (GNSO)and don't actively engage, view it as a place
where ICANN's non contracted parties are permanently at odds with 'the
rest'. They see that is the overriding story of the GNSO and to them this is
certainly negative. Personally I don't share this perception, but it does
exist and adds to the arguments of those who would like to see a different
model to this. That includes some rather large organisations and a few
governments!

I fail to see why using a more accurate, descriptive term should cause any
concern.

Tony

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: 06 May 2009 13:52
To: tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Carlos.Souza@xxxxxx; william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] object to proposal to change name of
Non-Contracting Parties House


Tony, how do the current names provide a negative
perception?


Tim
Sent from Go Daddy Mobile Mail.


> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] object to proposal to change name of
> Non-Contracting Parties House
> From: "Tony Holmes" <tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, May 05, 2009 4:42 pm
> To: "'Robin Gross'" <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <Gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "'Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza'" <Carlos.Souza@xxxxxx>,       
> "'William Drake'" <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,        "'Mary
> Wong'" <mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
>    Robin/All
> 
>    There may be a lack of
>    understanding here, so please
>    let me try and clarify the
>    background to this request.
>    This request was made as ISPs
>    are NOT `users' and the
>    proposed term is a much more
>    accurate reflection of the
>    make up of that house. The
>    term `providers was initially
>    widely used in the past but
>    dropped once it became clear
>    (particularly to the Board)
>    that ISPs were indeed
>    `providers' as much as other
>    parties.
> 
>    Splitting the GNSO down the
>    middle between contracted and
>    non contracted parties is a
>    sub division that does provide
>    a negative perception to the
>    outside world and that divide
>    shouldn't be seen as the basis
>    for all policy development.
> 
>    Robin - I hope that having
>    provided that information the
>    NCUC will reconsider there
>    stance on this.
> 
>    Regards
> 
>    Tony
>    ______________________________
>    From:
>    owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxx
>    g
>    [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@
>    icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin
>    Gross
>    Sent: 05 May 2009 18:16
>    To: Gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>    Cc: Carlos Affonso Pereira de
>    Souza; William Drake; Mary
>    Wong
>    Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt]
>    object to proposal to change
>    name of Non-Contracting
>    Parties House
> 
>    One point on today's draft
>    document:
>    After internal discussion,
>    NCUC objects to Philip's
>    proposal to change the name of
>    the Non-Contracting Parties
>    House to the "Users and
>    Providers" House and we prefer
>    to leave it as
>    "Non-Contracting Parties"
>    House since it is better
>    alignment with the other
>    house, the "Contracting
>    Parties House". Also adding on
>    "providers" is just too
>    ambiguous and will likely lead
>    to confusion as to what kind
>    of providers. Registrars are a
>    "provider" of sorts for
>    example. So NCUC does not
>    accept the proposed name
>    change of the house.
> 
>    Thanks,
>    Robin
> 
>    IP JUSTICE
>    Robin Gross, Executive
>    Director
>    1192 Haight Street, San
>    Francisco, CA 94117 USA
>    p: +1-415-553-6261 f:
>    +1-415-462-6451
>    w: http://www.ipjustice.org e:
>    robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx