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

["Terry L Davis, P.E." <tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan

 

I agree with you; I could live with "user" and don't believe the word
"individual" should be in the name of an SG and certainly not a house.

 

As several noted already, there is a great deal of clarify in the names of
the houses as they exist that could be lost in any changes.

 

Take care

Terry

 

From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 4:38 PM
To: Gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
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