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@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