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

["Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>]

Has an agenda for today's call been circulated? Are we just going to pick up 
with the list of changes where we left off last time, or revisit issues 
discussed then? 

Steve 
Sent via blackberry mobile. Please excuse tone and typoes. 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
To: Gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
Sent: Mon May 11 16:38:13 2009
Subject: 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 <mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
] On Behalf Of Tony Holmes
        Sent: 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 House
         
        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@xxxxxxxxx [ 
mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
] 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