FW: Next steps re GNSO restructuring v3
Dear ISPCP colleagues Attached is the latest draft of the document on GNSO restructuring that has been prepared by members of the ISPCP, BC and IPC. In addition it has also been shared with representatives of the NCUC and ALAC. It represents an alternative approach towards GNSO restructuring that, pending final comment from the above constituencies, will be forwarded to the Board for their consideration. The deadline for submission is April 25th, so please forward any comments by APRIL 21st. That will allow a final round of coordination/minor edits to take place between the three constituencies whilst still meeting the deadline set by the ICANN Board. The ISPCP leadership team strongly recommends your support for this proposal. If you wish to comment please respond to the list and cc Wolf-Ulrich Knoben and myself (email addresses above). A nil response will be taken as support for this draft. Regards Tony
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:19:02 +0100 From: <tony.ar.holmes@bt.com>
Dear ISPCP colleagues
Attached is the latest draft of the document on GNSO restructuring that has been prepared by members of the ISPCP, BC and IPC. In addition it
Thanks, Tony. This Masa Maruyama with JPNIC. Here is my comment. I basically support the idea of balancing three groups. In this message I would like to suggest an improvement relating to the description for our group "Commercial interest group". As I am not a native English speaker, I am not sure this label "Commercial interest group" might sound, but my concern is that this naming might cause a confusion that incentive for members in this group to participate in GNSO activities is to seak commercial gain. The reality is that, for members in the "Contract parity, domain name registration is their business and their GNSO activities are directly connected to their commercial gain while our activities are not. For us in the "Commercial interest group", our businesses are not domain name registration itself but have some relation to it, and because of such relation, we need sound evolution of the domain name market which will not harm our own businesses. That is, as I understand, our incentive to participate in GNSO activities, and I think this point should be included in the description of our group. As I am not a native English speaker, I have no self confidence in finding good expression for this, but one phrase I can think of is the following: Parties who are in charge of keeping integrity of economies surrounding domain name business I think this expression is slightly wider than the following in the current draft: The group should be unified entity representative broadly of commercial interests and open to commercially-oriented organisations and individuals such as consultants. To speak of my organization JPNIC, it is a not-for-profit organization consists of ISPs, and its objective is to seek sound evolution of the society by means of the Internet, not to seek commercial gain of itself nor our members. Because of this situation, the difference between above two descriptions is rather significant for us. ---- (Mr.) NaoMASA Maruyama Japan Network Information Center(JPNIC)
Thank you for this comment. I think some of the difficulties do come down to language, but we will do our best to accommodate your concern and feed this in to the discussion. Best Regards Tony -----Original Message----- From: MARUYAMA Naomasa [mailto:maruyama@nic.ad.jp] Sent: 21 April 2008 14:41 To: Holmes,AR,Tony,DMF R Cc: ispcp@icann.org; KnobenW@t-com.net Subject: Re: [ispcp] FW: Next steps re GNSO restructuring v3
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:19:02 +0100 From: <tony.ar.holmes@bt.com>
Dear ISPCP colleagues
Attached is the latest draft of the document on GNSO restructuring that
has been prepared by members of the ISPCP, BC and IPC. In addition it
Thanks, Tony. This Masa Maruyama with JPNIC. Here is my comment. I basically support the idea of balancing three groups. In this message I would like to suggest an improvement relating to the description for our group "Commercial interest group". As I am not a native English speaker, I am not sure this label "Commercial interest group" might sound, but my concern is that this naming might cause a confusion that incentive for members in this group to participate in GNSO activities is to seak commercial gain. The reality is that, for members in the "Contract parity, domain name registration is their business and their GNSO activities are directly connected to their commercial gain while our activities are not. For us in the "Commercial interest group", our businesses are not domain name registration itself but have some relation to it, and because of such relation, we need sound evolution of the domain name market which will not harm our own businesses. That is, as I understand, our incentive to participate in GNSO activities, and I think this point should be included in the description of our group. As I am not a native English speaker, I have no self confidence in finding good expression for this, but one phrase I can think of is the following: Parties who are in charge of keeping integrity of economies surrounding domain name business I think this expression is slightly wider than the following in the current draft: The group should be unified entity representative broadly of commercial interests and open to commercially-oriented organisations and individuals such as consultants. To speak of my organization JPNIC, it is a not-for-profit organization consists of ISPs, and its objective is to seek sound evolution of the society by means of the Internet, not to seek commercial gain of itself nor our members. Because of this situation, the difference between above two descriptions is rather significant for us. ---- (Mr.) NaoMASA Maruyama Japan Network Information Center(JPNIC)
participants (2)
-
maruyama＠nic.ad.jp -
tony.ar.holmes＠bt.com