Dear Roberto, I will run a querry among the france@large members on this matter and will report it. I would therefore suggest that we clarify the questions to ask so other ALS could run the same querry and we could validly compare. This could be articulated as follows: 1. do you consider that the creation of a GNSO Registrant Constituency is of importance? 2. if it was created should it be part of the ALAC, related to the ALAC, or independent from the ALAC? why? 3. do you see the Internet as: - a global whole (IETF) - where everyone shares the same level of interest for it to work better - (Y/N - comments)? - user centric (ISOC) - where everyone is entitled to an equal domain name service - (Y/N - comments)? - human centric (WSIS) - where people freely use specific Internet resources (such as access, domain names, addresses) and should be specifically invovled (Y/N - comments) 4. do you consider that ALAC is: - to represent ICANN locally? - to represent the Internet Community within ICANN? as a whole or on specific grounds? - both? 5. Do you see possible conflicts between you as an Internet user and as an Internet Registrant? 6. Would you feel more involved as a user or as a registrant? 7. Would a "registrant" and a "user" oriented mailing list be a good idea for france@large? 8. Which topic would you be interested in as a registrant (Y/N) - Multilingual Domain Names and support of French domain names? - ML_ccTLD - multilingual Mail Addresses - Whois Privacy to respect the French law - for profit nature of the registrars resulting from the ICANN due. - respect of the French law as far as national territory related Registries are concerned. - local and private TLDs - Domain Name ownership or holdership? - interest of registrars compared with domain related services? - UDRP evolution - anti-confusion rules (TM and famous name protection) - multilevel naming - semantic addressing convergence - QuiEst services (standardised information page on Domain Name owner/holder) - should consumer organisation protect domain name registrants? - anti-UDRP and foreign incident insurrance (protection against financial consequences, cost of a procedure) - Keywords and Aliases - DNS related new services - hierarchical or heterarchical name space - protected name formats - DNSSEC - DNS 2.0 : how do you see it. - multiple root evolution - ICANN ICP-3 demanded DNS evolution testing - national or european ICANN after the end of the ICANN/USG JPA - other topics 9. Additional comments All the best. jfc At 10:06 22/03/2008, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
True that the GNSO Stakeholder Group is defined for "registrants", not "users", but this opens the door to the possibility of having an individual registrant constituency, if some of the folks that are now in the at-large are interested in taking up this task. I am thinking in particular to people who are not part of an ALS, and/or have no intention to join one, but there's nothing that prevents anybody to participate both in ALAC and in the Registrants Constituency.
Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, 20 March 2008 14:42 To: At-Large Subject: Re: [At-Large] PAST DEADLINE: GNSO Review
At 20/03/2008 07:09 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
Not until after our next meeting to discuss the current drafting of the work we have done... 1st draft was completed on 17th and several edits have been discussed since but we will finalised in the teleconference, which is to be held March 21 1300 UTC...
And I note that that other constituencies have requested an extension of time for Comment / Response until April 25th
I would tend to oppose such an extension, as I think the proposed GNSO improvements will benefit at-large and want to see them implemented rapidly.
--Wendy
Wendy, could you share your logic with us? Although I support some of the changes recommended in the report (and am leery of some as well), I do not see how At-Large really benefits other than in a utopian vision of "if the GNSO and therefore the overall Internet functions better, all users will benefit".
It is true that there has been a lot of talk about At-Large or individual users being part of the Non-commercial Stakeholders Group. But that is all it is - talk. The BGC report makes it very clear that the 4th Stakeholder Group is for non-commercial REGISTRANTS. Admittedly, individual user registrants are part of the At-Large community, and indeed an important part. But At-Large also includes the uncountable number of users who are not registrants. And in the proposed model, they are excluded from participating in the work of the GNSO.
Even at the working group level, the words in the report can be interpreted as excluding non-registrants in that the report talks about working groups being composed of a wide range of "stakeholders", a terms that is otherwise used in the report to categorize registrants.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org