Re: [NA-Discuss] GNSO consumer constituency (was Re: OnlineNic, again)
At 10:11 AM 2/4/2009, Brendler, Beau wrote:
Do ISOC chapters not consider themselves protectors of consumer/registrant rights?
While the intent might be there, certainly, the capability, particularly when it comes to arcane aspects of ICANN policy, is definitely wanting. Jioly (isoc-ny) Joly MacFie 212 608 1334 http://wwwhatsup.com http://punkcast.com http://pinstand.com
WWWhatsup wrote:
At 10:11 AM 2/4/2009, Brendler, Beau wrote:
Do ISOC chapters not consider themselves protectors of consumer/registrant rights?
While the intent might be there, certainly, the capability, particularly when it comes to arcane aspects of ICANN policy, is definitely wanting.
To what extent does a conflict of interest exist between ISOC's mandate to protect consumer/registrant rights and its operation of a major registry? - Evan
While consumer/registarnts rights are certainly a concern of ISOC it is by no means mandated to protect those at the expense of all other constituencies.. It's stated mission is to promote the open development, evolution, and use of the Internet for the benefit of all people throughout the world. 'All' in this case would include all constituencies, including registrars. I am not certain how much influence ISOC has over the policies of PIR. I have cc'd Mr. Frédéric Donck above. Perhaps he can elucidate. Joly (isoc-ny)
WWWhatsup wrote:
At 10:11 AM 2/4/2009, Brendler, Beau wrote:
Do ISOC chapters not consider themselves protectors of consumer/registrant rights?
While the intent might be there, certainly, the capability, particularly when it comes to arcane aspects of ICANN policy, is definitely wanting.
To what extent does a conflict of interest exist between ISOC's mandate to protect consumer/registrant rights and its operation of a major registry?
- Evan
Joly MacFie 212 608 1334 http://wwwhatsup.com http://punkcast.com http://pinstand.com
participants (2)
-
Evan Leibovitch -
WWWhatsup