Hello everyone, Here is my current email: baudouin.schombe @ gmail.com DR Congo is not on the list google for online shopping and I can not buy storage space. I ask the coordinators to add email address below. It's really urgent and thank you for understanding. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) ACADEMIE DES TIC *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE *AT-LARGE MEMBER (ICANN) *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN) Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : [log in to unmask] skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2011/7/8 Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> > I agree that this looks like a proposal for a "law enforcement > constituency" or perhaps an initiative supported by companies who sell > commercial products related to spam, phishing, etc. Swapping out the words > "commercial" for "economic" in the draft below show how ill-suited this > proposal is for the noncommercial group. > > I find it troubling that a small aspect (law enforcement) of a much larger > Consumer Agenda could be given such a broad platform to claim to represent > The Consumer. A consumer agenda is much more than law enforcement concerns > - which have a place in the debate, but is better suited to a home in GAC > where govts belong, or the CSG where commercial interests belong. > > Robin > > > On Jul 8, 2011, at 8:12 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > Rosemary: > > I don't like these changes at all. It basically tries to identify the > word "consumer" with a specific issue perspective that may or may not be > supported by consumers. That's another reason why I am not a supporter of > this whole idea. > > > > Many consumers are interested in privacy and in securing their personal > information from public view. That's an element of consumer choice. That's > why millions of consumers pay extra for proxy registration services. > > > > Your redefinition of the "consumer" agenda is really a law enforcement > agenda. While there is room for legitimate debate around this, I think it > not honest to equate law enforcement and copyright interests with consumers. > That's just a rhetorical game. > > > > If you really want to be part of a consumer constituency, let's allow > consumers orgs to decide for themselves what services the broader goals of > competition, consumer trust and consumer choice. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On > >> Behalf Of Rosemary Sinclair > >> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 3:20 AM > >> To: [log in to unmask] > >> Subject: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] DRAFT Consumer Constituency objective - > >> comments > >> > >> Hi all > >> > >> Here's an attempt to take the next step - happy for any feedback > >> > >> Avri - could we put my DRAFT up so people could make their changes... > >> > >> I've included the NCSG-EC version from earlier this year (1) and my own > >> DRAFT (2) > >> > >> 1) Consumer Constituency – NCSG EC comments March 2011 > >> > >> The intended purpose of the Consumers Constituency is to serve as the > >> conduit for consumer interests as they relate 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 the economic > aspects > >> of the DNS that impact on consumers’ safety, security, stability, > usability, > >> access and other appropriate concerns to ensure these are adequately > >> represented within ICANN policy development. > >> > >> As such the consumers Constituency will promote competition, consumer > >> trust and consumer choice. > >> > >> > >> 2) Consumer Constituency – Rosemary DRAFT July 2011 > >> > >> The intended purpose of the Consumers Constituency is to serve as the > >> conduit for consumers’ economic interests (fraud, spam, phishing, > identity > >> theft and privacy) as they relate to those areas of the Internet within > the > >> scope of ICANN (registration abuse, WHOIS, RAA, Compliance, new gTLDs). > >> > >> As representatives of consumers’ economic interests, the Constituency > will > >> focus on aspects of the DNS that impact on safety, security, stability, > >> usability, access and other appropriate concerns to ensure these are > >> adequately represented within ICANN policy development. > >> > >> As such the Consumer Constituency will promote competition, consumer > >> trust and consumer choice. > >> > >> Cheers > >> > >> Rosemary > >> > >> > >> > >> Rosemary Sinclair > >> Director | External Relations > >> Australian School of Business | Level 3 Building L5 | UNSW | > >> Sydney NSW 2052 > >> Direct: +61 2 9385 6228 | Fax: +61 2 9385 5933 > >> Email: [log in to unmask] www.asb.unsw.edu.au > >> > >> EQUIS accredited for 5 years > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Beau Brendler [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > >> Sent: Tuesday, 5 July 2011 1:16 PM > >> To: Rosemary Sinclair; [log in to unmask] > >> Subject: Re: Proposed Consumer Constituency Charter - comments? > >> > >> Avri wrote: > >> > >>>> But I still have to say that after a couple of years of this being on > the table > >> I've still not heard a really crisp and clear definition of what it > would work on > >> substantively that isn't already being followed, however unevenly, by > >> existing groupings and people. Maybe if there's a new construction with > a > >> big sign it will draw new bodies into the ICANNsphere and increase the > level > >> of engagement on a distinctive set of issues, but one does have to > >> wonder.<<< > >> > >> Having written the charter more than three years ago now, and having > seen > >> it go through several rewrites over the course of at least three, > possibly four > >> public comment periods, I can tell you what you are looking for is in > the > >> words of the mission statement: > >> > >> "...serve as the conduit for consumer interests as they relate to the > Internet > >> and defined within the scope of ICANN. The major areas of consumer > >> interest are fraud, spam, phishing, identity theft, and privacy [defined > within > >> the ICANN scope as registration abuse, safety, and stability]; WHOIS; > the > >> Registrar Accreditation Agreement and the behavior of registrars, > registries, > >> resellers, domainers and other entities [defined within ICANN's scope as > >> "compliance"]..." > >> > >> This language was written in part out of frustration with the then > At-Large, > >> and with the then NCUC. The at-large did not take much of an interest > then > >> on these issues; its interests seemed primarily in self-analysis and > realizing > >> the dream of new gTLDs. The NCUC, much smaller then, was focused on > >> issues of free speech and freedom of expression, to the degree that its > >> ideology ruled out just about any other issue as co-opted by moneyed > >> interests. In addition, it appeared, to me anyway, the NCUC's focus or > hope > >> was to limit ICANN's power and scope as much as possible, and make it go > >> away. Actually, in my opinion, if ICANN doesn't do a better job of > enforcing > >> contracts and compelling compliance, then it should go away, because it > >> would then be a big waste of time and money and a fraudulent construct > >> that does more harm than good by pretending to do something it isn't. > But it > >> doesn't appear to be going away soon so its behavior needs to be > challenged > >> on behalf of the public interest. The contracted parties should not be > winning > >> every argument the way they do now. > >> > >> If it's the name of the constituency that seems to confuse people, well, > >> change its name to the contract compliance constituency or something. > But > >> arguments for its continued existence or non-existence should be based > on > >> merit, not on whether it may or may not have too many quasi-commercial > >> parties involved. That's just a smokescreen -- the consumer > constituency's > >> charter had always been much more stringent about who it would or would > >> not allow to be a member based on commercial ties or interests than the > >> NCUC's or the NCSG's. The way the consumer constituency's charter has > >> been written, you can't be a member and own a registrar. You can't make > a > >> principal living off consulting for governments or companies on ICANN > >> matters and be a member. And so on. We need to move past that now. > >> > >> If it takes constituencies to flesh out the NCSG's scope of policy work > to > >> include broader matters than freedom of speech and expression, then new > >> constituencies should be welcomed, not feared. We need more people > >> working on RAA issues and contract compliance and defining registration > >> abuse and the rights of registrants (and how their behavior effects the > >> general public) outside the core group of people doing it now, who also > tend > >> to be the same people who are interested in seeing the consumer > >> constituency go forward). > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Rosemary Sinclair <[log in to unmask]> > >>> Sent: Jun 30, 2011 3:34 AM > >>> To: [log in to unmask] > >>> Subject: Proposed Consumer Constituency Charter - comments? > >>> > >>> Hi all > >>> > >>> Here's the link Avri has set up to the docs... > >> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Consumer+Constit > >> uency+%28CC%29+-+candidate > >>> > >>> Here's the submitted version of the Mission.... > >>> > >>> 1.2 Mission > >>> The intended purpose of the Consumers Constituency is to serve as the > >> conduit for consumer interests as they relate to the Internet and > defined > >> within the scope of ICANN. The major areas of consumer interest are > fraud, > >> spam, phishing, identity theft, and privacy [defined within the ICANN > scope > >> as registration abuse, safety, and stability]; WHOIS; the Registrar > >> Accreditation Agreement and the behavior of registrars, registries, > resellers, > >> domainers and other entities [defined within ICANN's scope as > >> "compliance"]; and new gTLDs. The focus of the Consumers Constituency > >> will be to ensure that consumers' safety, security, stability, > usability, access, > >> and other appropriate concerns regarding the DNS are adequately > >> represented within ICANN policy development. > >> > >> > >>> > >>> Let's get feedback around the version of the Charter that reflects the > >> interest of the people who support the > >>> Proposed constituency - we might be able to find a way through or at > least > >> clarify the views > >>> > >>> Cheers > >>> > >>> Rosemary > >>> > >>> Rosemary Sinclair > >>> Director | External Relations > >>> Australian School of Business | Level 3 Building L5 | UNSW | > >> Sydney NSW 2052 > >>> Direct: +61 2 9385 6228 | Fax: +61 2 9385 5933 > >>> Email: [log in to unmask] www.asb.unsw.edu.au > >>> > >>> EQUIS accredited for 5 years > >>> > >>> > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask] >