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

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

For the House that I am part of, I am fine with the name Contracted Parties.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 9:41 AM
> To: Gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] object to proposal to change 
> name of Non-Contracting Parties House
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>