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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Steve,
 
The plan as I understand it is to pick up where we left off last week
and try to complete the initial discussion of all elements of the
document that I edited from Philip.  If my memory is correct, we will
finished with Article X, Section 3, GNSO Council, item 6 on page 5
(election of Board seats 13 & 14), so we will start today's discussion
with item 7 at the bottom of page 5.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
        Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 8:41 AM
        To: alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx; Gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] object to proposal to change name
of Non-Contracting Parties House
        
        

        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