Hi Danny,
Thanks for the input, but allow me to note that your observations, while logical, unfortunately are not correct.
Fair enough. It looked appropriate in theory but I can clearly see how it might not be applied in practice.
If you are making the claim that registrants are adequately represented by the BC and the NCUC in the GNSO, then unfortunately this claim is not borne out by the facts.
I would never make the claim that they are being adequately protected at this time by anyone. I was just trying to figure out if the labyrinth of existing ACs, SOs, constituencies etc would already include a mechanism or forum that -- at least in theory -- was designed to address registrant needs.
You will recall that ICANN CEO Paul Twomey put forward a well-publicized call for input regarding registrant protections in the wake of the RegisterFly debacle. A public comment forum was established that allowed for input on revisions to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.
Neither the BC nor the NCUC provided any comments to this forum -- none at all -- that pretty much sums up the degree of interest they have in protecting the general registrant community.
Your comments -- as well as Ross' -- are well taken. It's simply occurred to me that an organization that exists to sufficiently protect the interest of registrants would, by definition, also advocate the interests of phishers, tasters, parkers, kiters and spammers. In this sense it's probably best that such a group not be a part of ALAC since these folks rarely have the public interest in mind; I can see registrants and At-Large taking very different stands on issues such as WHOIS privacy. I would like to see ALAC supporting the interests of "personal" registrants, but I suspect that such number accounts for a single-digit percent of domain registrations. (I would be happy to be proven wrong on this assumption as well...) I will personally neither endorse nor impede efforts to create a separate registrants' AC, though I will gladly represent NARALO should it choose collectively to take an active position on this. This will certainly be on the agenda for the next NARALO conference call, tentatively scheduled March 10. - Evan