Re[2]: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term at the ICANN Board

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello Kent,

Sunday, September 24, 2000, 8:48:17 PM, you wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 24, 2000 at 04:22:39PM -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>> >     1) the at large election to the board is to cover the popular
>> >     representation problem  
>> 
>> And what does that have to do with the DNSO GA?

> The GA was not intended to duplicate the role of the atlarge.

It doesn't.  And nothing proposed would duplicate the at-large.
This is a fallacy you are propagating.

>> >     2) the purpose of the DNSO is to give constituencies a voice
>> 
>> No, the purpose of the DNSO is to be the Domain Name Supporting
>> Organization.

> Yes.  And the DNSO, like all the SO's was intended to provide focussed,
> "expert" input relative to the subject matter involved.  The other SOs 
> are also heavily dominated by the interests involved.

Exactly.  So please, point out to me where the average domain name
owner, who is most effected by these decisions, is represented in the
DNSO, Kent.

Also, please, educate us on how the IP constituency is an expert in
the subject of the DNS.  Remember, this is the group that elected a
board member who thinks that people shouldn't be allowed to have
domain names of common words like patents.com.  Very intelligent, lots
of expertise there, Kent.

>> The problem is that the constituencies are only a very
>> small subset of those effected by such policy,

> Completely and utterly false.  You really should know better than to
> spread such a myth.  The vast majority of domain names are registered by
> commercial entities -- 80% or more of all domain names are commercial,
> according to NSI.  But wait -- maybe you are claiming that the clear 
> majority of domain name holders -- ie, commercial interests -- are 
> inadequately represented in the DNSO?  Could that be it?

I love this, Kent.  Talk about a manipulation of terms.  "Commercial
interests" includes those small businesses, Kent, which do not fit
into any of these constituencies.  So while they VASTLY are more
closely "individual" domain owners, they are also commercial, and when
they register their domains, they do so in a commercial manner, and
are thus commercial entities.  Those statistics are also impossible to
verify.  There is absolutely no way that that number could have been
arrived at with any level of accuracy.

>> and as such, should not
>> be the sole voice on matters relating to the decisions made in the
>> DNSO, including election of the board members.

> The atlarge board members are intended to address that issue.

No, Kent, they are not.

Further, the At Large board members are selected by ICANN as the least
threatening choices, and not representative of those with an
individual and specific interest and stake in the domain name system.

>> >     3) the purpose of the nomination procedure is simply to get a
>> >     reasonable slate of candidates for the NC to chose among, not to
>> >     prevent NC members from proposing candidates
>> 
>> The problem is that the names council is firmly in the control of a
>> very small sect of special interests,

> In numerical terms the primary imbalance in representation in the NC is,
> in fact, the registries and registrars -- more than a third of the 
> votes in the NC are reserved for that very narrow slice of humanity.  
> However, they make the claim (with some justification) that they are 
> the entities most directly affected by ICANN's actions, and that they 
> also represent the greatest amount of expertise concerning the issues 
> that affect registries and registrars.

1/3 is not domination, Kent.

>> who can and infact have shown
>> that they will ignore any and all suggestions and select a candidate
>> who represents their view.

> So you think that Jonathan Cohen is particularly representative of the 
> registrars and the registries point of view?

No, I do not.  They do not dominate the NC.  You and I both know it.

>> If this is what was intended, rename the DNSO to the IPSO and get it
>> over with.

> It is just silly to claim that the NC only represents IP interests.

It is?  I stand by it, and the track record of this NC backs my words
up 110%.  The "election" of Jonathan Cohen is a perfect example of
that.

>> >     4) the NC is not a body with a single point of view
>> 
>> The names council is firmly in control by IP interests, or those who
>> are beholden to the IP interests.

> Nonsense.  IP interests have significant influence, no doubt about it. 
> But 5 of the 7 constituencies -- the registries, registrars, ISPs, and
> non-commercial -- are not by any means under the "control" of IP
> interests. 

The ISPs, Kent?  The ISPs are supposedly represented by two lobbying
groups, who by no stretch represent the average ISP.  The largest
members of the ISP constituency also have strong ties to interests
in the IP area.  The same is true of those in the commercial area.
The non-commercial even is strongly dominated by the ISOC, which has
almost always historically sided with the IP interests, in the
interests of political expediency to get what they want.  After all,
they are the ISOC, they know what is best for us even if we don't,
right?

Kent, anyone claiming this NC is fair and balanced is either on drugs,
mentally incompetent, or very good at stretching the truth.

-- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html