RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] object to proposal to change name of Non-Contracting Parties House
To weigh in here, I have no problem with "non-contracting". "User" was the term we used for much of the last year, and can easily live with that. Adding "provider" will cause endless confusion (since Registrars and Registries are the providers of domain names) and I would object to that strenuously.
I do not support including the word "individuals" in either a SG or House name. As the statement of the Joint GNSO ALAC working group on Individual involvement stated (ratified by the ALAC but not the GNSO), individuals have a place in both the commercial and non-commercial SG. But they are not completely different from the larger entities that belong to those groups and there is no need to single them out as requiring recognition in the group name(s).
Alan At 07/05/2009 06:17 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Tony:I see no pejorative implication in the division between "Contracting" and "Noncontracting." As labels they reflect simple facts. The reason the GNSO is bicameral is because of that fundamental structural aspect of ICANN's governance regime.There are as many, if not more, divisions between registrars / registries and between commercial / noncommercial users as there are cross-house divisions. We will not reconsider our stance on this. Sorry, Tony. I understand your objection to "User" house but can see no rational basis for objecting to "Non-contracting"----------From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tony HolmesSent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 5:42 PM To: 'Robin Gross'; Gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx Cc: 'Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza'; 'William Drake'; 'Mary Wong'Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] object to proposal to change name of Non-Contracting Parties HouseRobin/AllThere 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@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robin GrossSent: 05 May 2009 18:16 To: Gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx Cc: Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza; William Drake; Mary WongSubject: [gnso-restruc-dt] object to proposal to change name of Non-Contracting Parties HouseOne 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: +1-415-462-6451w: <http://www.ipjustice.org>http://www.ipjustice.org e: <mailto:robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx