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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

For the House that I am part of, I am fine with Noh-contracting parties

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-
> dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 9:56 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria; Gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] object to proposal to change name of Non-
> Contracting Parties House
> 
> 
> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
>