ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-restruc-dt]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, <Gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] object to proposal to change name of Non-Contracting Parties House
  • From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 15:56:05 +0200

Ditto.

Stéphane


Le 12/05/09 15:48, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 
> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 






<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy