Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency
On 2001-07-31 23:21:24 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 08:43:45PM -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
Whow, time travel. ;-)
>It is a sad irony that those who most vociferously complain about
>ICANN exceeding its mandate as a technical coordinating body are
>precisely the ones who exert the most pressure for it to become a
>global internet governance organization, with large scale global
>elections and an elaborate representational structure that some
>have compared to the UN. It is a great pity that those
>individuals, some of whom are otherwise quite intelligent, are
>simply oblivious to the intrinsic contradiction in their position,
>and to the inevitable consequences of that contradiction...
I'd agree with you if ICANN would indeed just be a technical
coordination body. There'd really be few justification for
sophisticated user representation structures if we'd be talking
about keeping lists of media types, port numbers, and possibly top
But, sad enough, ICANN is in the business of domain name policy,
which directly affects users' rights. Consider the UDRP: As a
domain name holder, I'm subject to that policy's procedures. Working
out such a policy in a process which is restricted to non-customer
stake holders doesn't look justifiable to me. Consider the
provisions for initial domain registrations in the new TLDs. Once
again, these regulations directly influence customers' interests.
That is, whereever ICANN acts as a regulatory monopoly (that is,
customers can't opt out except by not using the Internet, or by not
registering domains), customer (or individual) representation seems
Now, of course, there's the question how this can be accomplished in
an appropriate way which doesn't justify mission-creep by
One thing which would greatly simplify this would be some kind of
internet-centric global customer coalition which could take the role
of consumer watchdogs and advocates in more traditional regulatory
environments and consultations. (Civil Liberties Constituency,
anyone?) In a working consensus-building process, such a coalition
or constituency could prove quite valuable, and may be close to
sufficient for customer/user interest representation in the
Bad enough, it doesn't seem that this process is working as designed
nowadays. In particular, it seems that most of the more important
decisions are NOT made in documented consensus-building procedures
within the DNSO (or even the DNSO GA), but on the board. Also, I
don't see a Civil Liberties Constituency, yet.
Thus, the second question which comes up is who should be
represented on the board, and how they should be represented.
And that's precisely where the hard part of the problem begins. Just
look at the ccTLDs...
Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html