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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,


On 12 May 2009, at 01:38, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> 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 have no real preference in this either way nd am comfortable with  
the original names as documented, but I do want to caution that the  
suggested new names might cause confusion.
e.g in looking at a random dictionary i get

supplier ▸ noun:  someone whose business is to supply a particular  
service or commodity
provider ▸ noun:  someone whose business is to supply a particular  
service or commodity
Yes, in one case it is the first definition and in another it is the  
second definition, but using synonyms might not be the best idea in an  
attempt to clarify.
With a certain amount of trepidation I offer another possibility (and  
will not raise a peep if it is totally rejected or ignored)
How about keeping Contracted Parties for the contracted parties since  
they seem happy with it and using Registrants and Users  (or perhaps  
Registrants, Users , and Services) for the other house.
a.


a.