RE: [council] Regarding individual users
Mike, I just meant to point out that part of Avri's comment was not
entirely accurate. Registrants have a huge choice of registrars and if
they don't like the policies of one they can choose another. But I agree
that this choice doesn't cover every issue (WHOIS for example).
Regarding WHOIS, registrars have basically been compromising when we say
it should just be left alone. I think if you actually query each
registrar individually you will come up with a majority wanting to make
it a completely opt-in service or something close to that. I doubt that
is what you're looking for. On the other end of the spectrum, to address
the vast number of registrants who want more privacy many registrars
have implemented privacy or proxy services.
The RRA issue went the way it did because there was a desire for some
signficant changes to address the issues raised by the Registerfly
debacle. The route taken was quicker than initiating multiple PDPs on
the issues. However, we just felt that some issues raised may be better
left to a PDP or to further discussions that could be more granular and
allow for more focus, more time, etc.
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] Regarding individual users
From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, January 07, 2009 11:34 am
To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Tim,
As an elected representative of commercial registrants, I don't see much
if
any evidence of having a "powerful voice in getting a fair deal from
registrars" -- particularly with respect to the RAA and WHOIS issues.
Instead, the registrars have negotiated with Staff on the RAA and
largely
ignored the voices of registrants, and they have taken a position simply
that WHOIS is fine and should never be discussed again. I fail to see
how
either position respects the voices of any substantial group of
registrants.
If I am missing something, please enlighten me.
Thanks,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 8:48 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] Regarding individual users
> they are dependent on the GNSO and its council as
> the only voice they have in order to get a fair
> deal from ICANN and its contracted parties.
Avri, not disagreeing with your comments below in general.
But felt it necessary to point out that registrants as a
class have the most powerful voice of all in getting a
fair deal from contracted parties - at least registrars.
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] Regarding individual users
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, December 26, 2008 10:40 am
To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi,
On 26 Dec 2008, at 05:21, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
>
> I note that individual commercial Internet users also are quite
> diverse
> in their interests in domain names - ranging from those that are not
> domain name registrants and merely use the Internet for communication
> with suppliers, to those that actively maintain a portfolio of second
> level domains that either appreciate in capital value or earn money
> through advertising.
While I have not seen figures and it would be interesting to see such
figures, I assume a much larger group (at least larger then the
portfolio holder category) of Commercial interest are the Registrants
whose small or single proprietor businesses depend on the outreach,
advertising and information distribution gained through use of heir
web sites.
And while the outreach of the GNSO into the non-registrant user
community has been prescribed, I still think the GNSO needs to make
sure that we care for the interests of all registrants, commercial and
non-commercial, as a special class, as they are dependent on the GNSO
and its council as the only voice they have in order to get a fair
deal from ICANN and its contracted parties. I am hoping we don't
forget these two categories of registrants while making a further
outreach to non-registrant users as these registrants remain
unrepresented for the most part (despite a few individuals who are
represented).
a.