May 2011 - NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Comment on the .NET auto-renew and contract terms
by Eric Brunner-Williams May 10, 2011

May 10, 2011

Colleagues, I've drafted a comment in response to http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11apr11-en.htm The comment raises two issues, first, that renewal of legacy monopoly contracts does not achieve a competition policy goal, and second, that the contract could, whether awarded to the legacy monopoly operator or any other party, distinguish between the "registry operator" and "registry technical backend services operator" sets of functions, allowing registrants to select, through their registrars, one of one or more competing registry technical backend services operator(s) for domains in the .NET zone. For those not familiar with the second issue, the original Shared Registry Proposal by Crispin, Gaetano, Langlois and others, developed in the IETF, reduces the registry operator's monopoly power to the few functions of producing (and modernly signing) a unified zone, and coordination among two or more registrars (transfer functions and data pointers where the registry data model is "thin"). If there is anyone who wishes to go on record questioning the wisdom of auto-renewal for Verisign's franchises, and/or ending monopoly in the registry function, drop me a line today as comments close tomorrow. Eric

4 4

Public Comment on the .NET auto-renew, against public interest on competition policy grounds
by Eric Brunner-Williams May 9, 2011

May 9, 2011

Colleagues, I'm submitting two comments, the FIRST of which follows, observing that presumptive renewal of .NET is contrary to the public interest on competition policy grounds. The public announcement is here: http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11apr11-en.htm If anyone wants to co-sign, you'll have to explicitly let me know. I'll be submitting the comment around 9am EDT tomorrow. Begin: The statement of ICANN's position, "ICANN's gTLD registry agreements provide for presumptive renewal so long as certain requirements are met", fails to distinguish between legacy contracts, established before ICANN's existence, and contracts entered into subsequent to the 2001 and 2004 rounds of the new gTLD process, and prospective contracts from any continuation of ICANN's new gTLD process. This is unfortunate as there are substantive differences of market power exercised by the holder of pre-ICANN registry agreements, and the holders of ICANN registry agreements, and one of ICANN's core public purposes arose from a competition policy goal, which necessitates distinguishing between actors in a market with market power and actors lacking market power. It is also unfortunate as it negates the public policy purpose in having conducted two open, objective competitions for re-delegations in 2002 and 2004, however problematic each of those were. It is worth noting that one act of redelegation accomplished more in one year than ten years of awarding new registry contracts has towards realization of those original competition policy goals. The public interest in stability and predictability for new registry operators is self-evident. None of the 2001 round and subsequent operators, with the possible exceptions of the .INFO registry, and the certain exception of the .CAT registry, are clearly "viable" as is after almost 10, respectively 5, years of operation. Where there is a clear pattern of mismanagement, as there has been for several years for the .TRAVEL registry, and currently for the .JOBS registry, and as there was in the initial years of the .BIZ registry operations, corrective action, including non-renewal and competitive re-delegation, or temporary "fail-over" operations, are appropriate. Absent those circumstances, re-award of a limited term operating contract is commercially reasonable, perhaps even necessary. However, where the contract has been held for more than three five year periods, the presumption of re-award absent adverse circumstances is incompatible with the original, and continuous, competition policy goal. End To be sent to net-agreement-renewal(a)icann.org. Forward as you see fit.

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Comment on the .NET auto-renew and contract terms
by Beau Brendler May 9, 2011

May 9, 2011

I support this also. We can bring it up for possible wider support in the NARALO meeting in an hour or so if that would help. -----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: May 9, 2011 12:17 PM >To: Avri Doria <avri(a)ella.com> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Comment on the .NET auto-renew and contract terms > >Hello all, > >We don't get around it. We can't.We have no effect on the GNSO. > >But under the authority mandated in the ICANN bylaws, ALAC has the ability >-- arguably an obligation -- to communicate to the Boards directly when it >encounters ICANN activity that goes against the public good. > >And in perfect bottom-up fashion, this is how it's supposed to work. >Discussions happening in the regions that percolate up to become global >assertions of the public interest. Especially in a case in which Avri and >Eric find common ground. :-) > >I would fully support ALAC's escalation if it can be suitably informed of >the issues by those here who are knowledgeable on it. > >- Evan > > > > > > > >On 9 May 2011 10:03, Avri Doria <avri(a)ella.com> wrote: > >> Hi Eric, >> >> On 9 May 2011, at 09:46, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: >> >> > If there is anyone who wishes to go on record questioning the wisdom >> > of auto-renewal for Verisign's franchises, and/or ending monopoly in >> > the registry function, drop me a line today as comments close tomorrow. >> >> >> Not that we have a great record of working together, but I would be >> interested in seeing some telling and convincing comment made. >> >> My problem is that the contract itself and the contractual conditions >> recommended by the GNSO give a presumption of renewal (I argued against it >> in the Task Force but as usual, was not successful it getting it removed). >> How do we get around that? >> >> a. >> >> >> ------ >> NA-Discuss mailing list >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss >> >> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >> ------ >> > > > >-- >Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada >Em: evan at telly dot org >Sk: evanleibovitch >Tw: el56 >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

REMINDER: NARALO TELECONFERENCE - Monday, 09 May 19:00 UTC
by Marilyn Vernon May 9, 2011

May 9, 2011

Dear All, The next NARALO teleconference is scheduled for Monday, 09 May 2011 at 19:00 UTC. The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/qYrT If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org><mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Gisella Gruber-White, Seth Greene, Marilyn Vernon ICANN At-Large Staff

3 2

Re: [NA-Discuss] Requirements for NARALO individual membership and related motion (Beau, 10 min)
by Beau Brendler May 8, 2011

May 8, 2011

Actually, I believe that's a leftover agenda item from the last meeting. I probably won't get around to updating the agenda until Monday AM now, as the meeting apparently was accidentally deleted from ICANN staff's calendars and as a result I had not paid attention to the agenda until today. Unless there is something you want brought up, I probably won't put it on there. When it was discussed, the general drift was to leave the individual membership requirements more or less alone, though I don't believe the issue was resolved as to creating more specificity for eligibility (i.e., indy members should be in a non-profit or non-commercial capacity). I'm the one who put the agenda item on there, out of concern for the pre-GAC scorecard kibitzing we were getting on the NA list from contracted parties. But that seems to have passed us, in both time and passion. And I understand that people generally want to err on the side of inclusiveness rather than exclusiveness. Anyway, my opinion on that whole thing has evolved to basically this: I trust the individual membership representative, Eric B-W, to alert us to any concerns going forward. -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: May 6, 2011 7:28 PM >To: "na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Cc: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> >Subject: Requirements for NARALO individual membership and related motion (Beau, 10 min) > >I see that the upcoming NARALO agenda has this item on it. Which individual membership requirements are being re-evaluated and what is the motion that will be up for discussion? > >Thanks, >Danny

4 3

GNSO standing committee on improvement implementation
by Beau Brendler May 6, 2011

May 6, 2011

Please pardon the crossover if you are on this list and not interested in the consumer constituency. A bunch of folks on NA are, though, and time is short, so: If you have been an interested part of the consumer constituency discussions, we have been asked (along with all other constituencies) to volunteer one person for the GNSO's Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI). You would be representing the proposed (candidate) consumer constituency. More information at: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201104> motion 20110407-1 Please let me know right away if you are interested. Beau -----Original Message----- >From: "John R. Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com> >Sent: May 6, 2011 4:40 PM >To: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw(a)abenaki.wabanaki.net> >Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Update on Consumer Constituency Charter Changes > >> The surcharge for static v4 addresses causes access network >> subscribers to purchase a second, frequently virtualized, "computer" >> through a "web hosting" provider, a duplicated cost where the access >> network is "always on" (aka "broadband"). There is reasonable >> correlation between domain registrations (ppc registrations ignored) >> and stable content and broadband as the access network of the registrants. > >I don't think that the difficulty of getting a static v4 address for your >home connection has much to do with the popularity of web hosting. My DSL >has a static address (a real one, permanently assigned by the ISP) but I >host my web sites elsewhere for reasons of bandwidth, stability, and not >wanting to run noisy servers 24/7 in my office like I did back when I had >a T1. > >Also, it's not at all obviousr to me that even for people who do want to >run servers, what they would have to do with a consumer constituency. The >vast majority of people I know have no interest in a 2LD. If they want to >host something, they do so at Facebook or Blogspot or Flickr. > >R's, >John >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] Update on Consumer Constituency Charter Changes
by Beau Brendler May 6, 2011

May 6, 2011

Thanks. That statement was inserted to resonate back with some of the ICANN language that appears in the AOC. It's open to tinkering, certainly. -----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch Sent: May 6, 2011 4:48 PM To: Beau Brendler Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Update on Consumer Constituency Charter Changes We're still working on the definition of "consumer"? Sheesh. My (CAD)$0.02: If the planned terminology is "The CC will work to promote competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace", (emphasis mine), then the context is clearly limited to registrants. Most end users (ie, people who use the Internet to consume things, but are not aware of what the DNS is, let alone exercise any choice within its "marketplace") fall outside of this sphere. This is perfectly legitimate, but that wording in the charter may not match the intended results. If the intention is to support consumer trust (amongst consumers of *all* things using the internet, be they goods, services, content or advertising) the the above wording is far too narrow. In this case the DNS is only an important link in the chain between supplier and consumer, but not the only thing itself being consumed (so to speak). That link is certainly deserving of protection, but it is not the end in itself to most consumers. I fully support the mission as stated, The intended purpose of the Consumers Constituency is to serve as the conduit for consumer interests as they relate to those areas of the Internet within the scope of ICANN. As representatives of consumers, who are using the Internet to purchase or use goods and services, the Constituency will focus on aspects of DNS that impact on consumers such as safety, security, stability, usability, access and any other appropriate concerns to ensure these are adequately represented within ICANN policy development. but believe that this is at odds with The CC will work to promote competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace This last sentence is not a good summary and should just be dropped. The mission statement is complete as it is. - Evan

2 1

Update on Consumer Constituency Charter Changes
by Beau Brendler May 6, 2011

May 6, 2011

Those interested in the Consumer Constituency, may I ask that you read the exchange between Rosemary Sinclair (in which she has excerpted the comments of others) below. Please offer any comments as soon as possible. I think most of us involved in this would like to see it move forward without too much further delay. Thanks Beau -----Forwarded Message----- From: Beau Brendler Sent: May 6, 2011 11:52 AM To: Rosemary Sinclair , Alex Gakuru , ncsg-ec(a)n4c.eu Subject: Re: : Update on Consumer Constituency Charter Changes Thanks for this. So the suggested new mission statement is this, correct?: The intended purpose of the Consumers Constituency is to serve as the conduit for consumer interests as they relate to those areas of the Internet within the scope of ICANN. As representatives of consumers, who are using the Internet to purchase or use goods and services, the Constituency will focus on aspects of DNS that impact on consumers such as safety, security, stability, usability, access and any other appropriate concerns to ensure these are adequately represented within ICANN policy development. The CC will work to promote competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace. With your permission, I will forward this around to some folks who have been involved in the CC for a while and see what they think. My guess is that there will be no problem. I'd like to forward it to NA-Discuss, possibly other ICANN lists. I'll give you some thoughts in the form of pros and cons. Pros first: * Going back to the purchasing goods and services thing is fine with me. In fact, there was some language in the previous CC proposed charters that was very similar. There's a con to this as well, see below for cons. * Seems to me this is a good way to delineate what is in the purview of the NCUC and what is in the purview of CC. In fact, some people have suggested that we should call it "consumer protection constituency" instead of just consumer. I'm fine either way. However, the NCUC could rightly argue that their mission involves consumer protection as well, specifically on privacy issues, so I'll just note that here. * This language would certainly be easier for consumer organizations (Consumentenbond, Test-Achat, my former employer, etc.) to grab onto. * I like the reference presumably to the AOC in the part that says: "The CC will work to promote competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace." Parroting some of the ICANN aspirational language would seem to be important at this phase in a bureaucratic and political sense. Cons next: * The terms "consumer" and "consumer choice" really seem to derail people. When Alex and I convened the meeting in San Francisco, most of the feedback we got was discomfort with these terms and their meaning. So there is still an audience out there in the community who don't yet understand where "end-users" or "regular folks" fit in to the mix here, or within the NCUC. Further, if we are going to use the word "consumer choice" in the mission, then I would be in favor of defining what exactly that means, because I don't really know, and neither did several members of the ICANN board I spoke to in SF. Does that refer to the pricing of services offered by registrars and registries, etc.? Similarly, what is meant by "competition"? * Generally speaking, though the group Alex and I convened in SF was small, there was a lot of dissatisfaction with limiting the scope of the consumer constituency to purchase of goods and services. I don't necessarily agree with that dissatisfaction. However, the more generalized proposed mission statement of the constituency that we came up with after SF, and that Milton is probably referring to in his comment, was literally "written" by the audience who attended that meeting on what the CC should be about, not by Alex or by me -- we really just shaped the feedback. So there is some alienation risk of that community, but I don't think that should hold us back from moving forward. * In other conversations with members of the ICANN board I had, there was limited to no agreement on what the word "consumer" means. So however we go forward, I think we have to be clear on how (and by whom) the plain old "end-user" or regular human being is being represented in GNSO policy making. * Can a reasonable argument be made, in light of the current NCUC mission language, that the Consumer Constituency, with its emphasis on the purchasing of goods and services, etc., therefore be better aligned with commercial or business interests? I'm not saying it should, but am wondering if that argument will be made. And I assume that issue would be addressed by the characteristics of the consumer constituency itself. * This purchasing of goods and services language precedes Alex's involvement in the formation of the constituency, so I don't know what his comfort level with that language is. Alex, what do you think? -----Original Message----- From: Rosemary Sinclair Sent: May 5, 2011 9:02 PM To: Alex Gakuru , Beau Brendler , ncsg-ec(a)n4c.eu Subject: : Update on Consumer Constituency Charter Changes Hi Alex and Beau Here are some comments/discussion from NCSG EC on the proposed Consumer Charter Iâve included the latest comments from email discussion below for you to see how our thinking has been evolving We think itâs best for you to have a look now and let us know how youâd like to proceedâ¦ Cheers Rosemary Milton wrote: But in that case they are not âconsumersâ they are âusersâ. What I am trying to avoid is a fragmentation of âuserâ representation across NCUC and CC. Each âconstituencyâ should have a clearly circumscribed domain and not purport to speak for each other. ROSEMARY wrote: but some goods and services may be "free" ....so I included "use" From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Thursday, 28 April 2011 1:15 AM To: ncsg-ec(a)n4c.eu; Avri Doria Subject: [ncsg-ec] RE: Rosemary - Update on Consumer Constituency Charter Changes This looks just about right to me. The purchase of goods and services seems an inalienable part of our concept of âconsumerâ so I like this clarification. But I am still confused by the phrase âwho are using the internet to purchase _or use_ goods and servicesâ ?? Is that an inadvertent typo, or are you referring to digital goods or services that are used online? If the latter, then we still donât need the extra âor useâ because before you can use goods and services as a consumer you need to purchase them. From: Rosemary Sinclair [mailto:Rosemary.Sinclair@atug.org.au] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 8:52 PM To: ncsg-ec(a)n4c.eu; Avri Doria Subject: [ncsg-ec] Rosemary - Update on Consumer Constituency Charter Changes Hi all Always an interesting processâ¦clarifying the focus Also raises question of where NCUC Charter review is up toâ¦. Iâve made some changes to Mission to try to capture some of info below on Consumer Policy 1.1 Mission[KB1] The intended purpose of the Consumers Constituency is to serve as the conduit for consumer interests as they relate to those areas of the Internet within the scope of ICANN. As representatives of consumers, who are using the Internet to purchase or use goods and services, the Constituency will focus on aspects of DNS that impact on consumers such as safety, security, stability, usability, access and any other appropriate concerns to ensure these are adequately represented within ICANN policy development. The CC will work to promote competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace To compare with âNon-commercialââ¦.NCUC Charter draft saysâ¦ The purposes of the Noncommercial Users Constituency are to represent the views and interests of those who engage in noncommercial speech and activity on the Internet. It is further created to provide a voice and representation in ICANN processes to non-profit organizations and individuals that serve non-commercial interests and provide services such as education, community organizing, promotion of the arts, public interest policy advocacy, children's welfare, religion, scientific research, human rights and the advancement of the Internet as a global communications system for all segments of society. Cheers Rosemary Sinclair Managing Director, ATUG Chairman, INTUG T: +61 2 94958901 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +61 2 94958901 end_of_the_skype_highlighting F: +61 2 94193889 M: +61 413734490 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +61 413734490 end_of_the_skype_highlighting Email: rosemary.sinclair(a)atug.org.au Skype: rasinclair Please visit the ATUG website for Updates and Information www.atug.com.au -----Original Message----- From: Rosemary Sinclair Sent: Friday, 22 April 2011 3:29 PM To: Avri Doria; ncsg-ec(a)n4c.eu Subject: RE: [!! SPAM] SPAM-LOW: Fwd: [ncsg-ec] Fwd: Forward: Update on Consumer Constituency Charter Changes Hi Avri and everyone I've made a couple of comments in the "Mission" section...looking for a link to the AOC ....which I have always seen as a mechanism for mainstreaming the consumer interests in ICANN processes....just a thought! I have just "dumped" the words where I think they might go...not attempt at elegance Not sure how we get a view from Alex/Beau on how they feel about this..... Cheers Rosemary Rosemary Sinclair Managing Director, ATUG Chairman, INTUG T: +61 2 94958901 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +61 2 94958901 end_of_the_skype_highlighting F: +61 2 94193889 M: +61 413734490 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +61 413734490 end_of_the_skype_highlighting Email: [1]rosemary.sinclair(a)atug.org.au Skype: rasinclair Please visit the ATUG website for Updates and Information [2]www.atug.com.au ______________________________________________________________________ From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@psg.com] Sent: Thursday, 21 April 2011 7:16 AM To: Rosemary Sinclair Subject: [!! SPAM] SPAM-LOW: Fwd: [ncsg-ec] Fwd: Forward: Update on Consumer Constituency Charter Changes Begin forwarded message: From: Avri Doria <[3]avri(a)acm.org> Date: 14 April 2011 16:43:07 GMT+02:00 To: NCSG EC <[4]ncsg-ec(a)n4c.eu> Subject: [ncsg-ec] Fwd: Forward: Update on Consumer Constituency Charter Changes Hi, Alex Gakuru and Beau Brendler have finished the merging of their respective groups and are submitting their charter for the Consumer Constituency for NCSG Executive Committee review and approval. Please review and let's discuss on the list. thanks a. Begin forwarded message: From: Alex Gakuru <[5]gakuru(a)gmail.com> Date: 14 April 2011 14:54:18 GMT+02:00 To: Avri Doria <[6]avri(a)acm.org> Cc: Konstantinos Komaitis <[7]k.komaitis(a)strath.ac.uk>, Robin Gross <[8]robin(a)ipjustice.org>, Milton L Mueller <[9]mueller(a)syr.edu> Subject: Re: Forward: Update on Consumer Constituency Charter Changes Dear Avri, I requested your advice after San Francisco CC meeting via below message. Could it have been lost to your spam filters? At this point, yes, please accept it a formal submission to NCSG Policy and excuse the route? regards, Alex References 1. mailto:rosemary.sinclair@atug.org.au 2. http://www.atug.com.au/ 3. mailto:avri@acm.org 4. mailto:ncsg-ec@n4c.eu 5. mailto:gakuru@gmail.com 6. mailto:avri@acm.org 7. mailto:k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk 8. mailto:robin@ipjustice.org 9. mailto:mueller@syr.edu

7 6

Re: [NA-Discuss] Update on Consumer Constituency Charter Changes
by Beau Brendler May 6, 2011

May 6, 2011

Interesting points. You asked: "Would it be fair to characterize this application as being made by parties to monitized transactions, also known as retail on-line sales?" The intent was for the constituency to represent consumer organizations, meaning consumer advocacy or consumer protection organizations, like Consumentenbond of Holland, or Test-Achats of Belgium, or my old employers at Consumers Union, though their advocacy side no longer involves itself in telecom issues (which was where Internet issues advocates were housed). Some consumer organizations and user organizations of that sort expressed interest in joining, and remain members of the "proposed" constituency, though the process has dragged on so long now that I think it's best to actually create something before re-engaging. The idea was to use the constituency as a conduit for consumer organizations' opinions on particular Internet policy matters in the GNSO, since those organizations tend to represent, or at least communicate, with lots and lots of regular people, through their magazines and through their advocacy. In return, the constituency's goal was to assist consumer advocacy organizations in cutting through the ICANN learning curve to help them figure out how to prioritize what issues to focus on, since much of the activity in ICANN falls outside the scope of consumer organizations' interests. It would be difficult to interest consumer organizations, for instance, in IPv4 to IPv6 transition. But there are aspects of new gTLDs or WHOIS and Internet safety and stability issues that they probably would (and have had) an opinion on. I wrote an opinion three years ago for Consumers Union on the new gTLD process, for instance. Conversely, though consumer organizations may be largely considered politically liberal, most of them I know steer clear of human rights and freedom of speech issues, for reasons of politics, funding and applicability. But in trying to get the constituency going, we broadened that focus a while back, because too many people got hung up on the word "consumer." So we in essence changed it to "end-user" or "human being." There's a challenge, however, with not duplicating the efforts of the NCUC constituency, whose primary issues of advocacy are (in my opinion) freedom of expression, freedom of speech, human rights, etc. All excellent values to uphold, but there did not (again in my opinion) seem to be a constituency in the GNSO that represented issues such as safety, security, consumer protection from fraud and harm, etc. At times it has been suggested, perhaps wisely, that the Consumer Constituency be re-named the "Consumer Protection Constituency," because it was perceived it would often find common ground with such organizations as the APWG or SpamHaus or even law enforcement. One could probably argue that the business and commercial constituencies are concerned about similar issues, especially when it comes to things like trademark protection. But in my experience business and commercial entities tend to act in self-interest (as they would be expected to do, with their primary goal to make and maximize profits). It's not appropriate to ask them to act as advocates of "consumers," because their goal is to make money from consumers. In addition, it's a trust issue. I may agree with some things CADNA might say, for instance, regarding consumer confusion and trademark protection in new gTLDs. But CADNA is a lobby group funded by corporations interested in protecting their trademarks. But industry has (comparatively) tons of money and time and legal resources and whatnot to get its points across in the ICANN realm. Finally, if anyone is still reading, it's important to consider the existence of the Non-Profit Operations Constituency (NPOC), which has some strong opinions about non-profit trademark protection, for instance. The newly-chartered NCSG would be made up, if I have my recent facts correct, of the NCUC, the CC (consumer constituency), and the NPOC. -----Original Message----- >From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw(a)abenaki.wabanaki.net> >Sent: May 6, 2011 1:08 PM >To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Update on Consumer Constituency Charter Changes > >Beau, > >I've not paid attention to this particular constituency (or >stakeholder group) application, though I paid very close attention to >the earlier application for urban areas. > > >It seems pretty clear from the language that the drafters of the >proposal don't view stub resolvers as "consumers", though this is >pretty much the view of the DNS technical community, that browsers and >mailers and anything else that uses the DNS invokes a stub resolver to >start the name to resource resolution sequence of query and response >exchanges between an edge device and some recursive or non-recursive >server somewhere else. > >If the BC is the entity which advocates for the self-interest of >on-line vendors-for-cash of goods and services, then is the CC the >proposed entity for the self-interest of the counter-parties of those >on-line vendors-for-cash of goods and services, whether they are >called "customers" or "purchasers" or "consumers" or ... > >Would it be fair to characterize this application as being made by >parties to monitized transactions, also known as retail on-line sales? > >Do they care how their non-transactional email works? What about >whether wikipedia resolves correctly? Are they vegetarians or do they >just eat yams? > >Eric >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------

4 5

Re: [NA-Discuss] Update on Consumer Constituency Charter Changes
by Jean Armour Polly May 6, 2011

May 6, 2011

What is the difference between this and At-large, aren't they the same people? Jean Armour Polly

2 1