RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Naming the Houses

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

No one I know in the Noncommercial SG has any problem with "non-contracting." 
(Note that we are already known for what we are not). 

Frankly, this is the kind of issue that we shouldn't be wasting many cycles on. 

I take the exact opposite position as Philip with respect to the external 
implications of the name. External parties or newcomers need to understand from 
the outset that ICANN is a contractual governance regime; that there is a basic 
and important distinction between contracting and noncontracting parties; that 
the GNSO is bicameral. No better way to do that than to attach the right labels 
to things. 

We could class the DNS something else to make it more superficially 
understandable - but any inaccurate name you can come up with is bound to cause 
more trouble than its worth.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-
> dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 11:04 AM
> To: Gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Naming the Houses
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Assuming the Board/SIC has no objection to Houses choosing their own
> name, will it be possible to find a name that is acceptable to both SGs
> in that house?
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 14:11 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> > There are two primary objections to "Non-contracting parties House"
> >
> > a) The world outside ICANN
> > We are often too intro-spective when we discuss ICANN issues.
> > For me, as someone involved for most of my time in non-ICANN issues I
> > frequently explain to senior policy makers and CEOs what ICANN is
> > about.
> > Using language to describe a group such as "Users" communicates to
> > these people.
> > "Non-contracting" requires a detailed understanding of ICANN.
> >
> > b) Self-esteem
> > As professionals engaged in a political and economic process we do not
> > wish to be known for what we are NOT.
> > We wish to be known for what we are.
> >
> >
> >
> >