Re: [ga] NC BS

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

         I don't think I provided any insights into "the divisive nature of 
individual involvement"; rather, I provided insight into the divisive 
nature of attempts to *exclude* individuals from involvement.  Let's be 
clear:  Under the NC proposal, none of the past chairs of the GA -- not 
Roberto, not Danny, not Thomas -- would have *any* avenue for participation 
in domain-name policy development, except as filtered through national or 
supranational "consumer organizations," or through after-the-fact "public 
consultation."  This is wrong on two levels.  First, it is wrong because, 
as Jamie and others have pointed out, individual registrants are 
stakeholders every bit as much as business registrants (if you will, they 
are as much "directly impacted by ICANN policies").  Second, it is wrong 
because excluding this set of contributors from the policy process will 
lead to bad (and skewed) decisionmaking.

Jon


At 10:20 AM 5/17/2002 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote:
>Jamie Love raises a key question about defining stakeholders.
>And Jonathan Weinberg has provided a good insight into the divisive nature 
>of individual involvement.
>
>Let me propose a few starting points.
>
>1. "Stakeholders in ICANN policy development" means those directly 
>impacted by ICANN policies.
>2. Stakeholders in the Internet per se are a different group.
>3. The impact of ICANN policy on e.g. Verisign, is of a different order to 
>the impact of ICANN policy on my non-PC owning Aunt Agatha.
>
>Conclusion:
>- there need to be different levels of involvement in ICANN policy 
>development.
>
>If you accept the above conclusion, lets review 1) by reference to the 
>existing DNSO constituencies:
>gTLD registries, ccTLD registries, registrars, ISPs - ICANN policies 
>impact on their business contracts. They are stakeholders.
>Business, Intellectual property interests, non-commercial organisation 
>users - ICANN policies impact on the confidence of themselves and their 
>customers/members to use the internet for e-commerce or non-commercial 
>purpose (UDRP, Who Is, domain name availability, security, stability). 
>They are stakeholders.
>
>Individual registrants - like all consumers -  may be indirectly impacted 
>by ICANN policies. Is each individual a true stakeholder in the same sense 
>? I do not know but their collective interests are clearly valid.  In the 
>non-ICANN world the voice of consumers in policy development is typically 
>heard via consumer organisations. Such organisations exist at national and 
>regional (eg EU) level. This is the format of involvement of registrants 
>as consumers that the NC envisages in recommendation 19.
>
>The rest of the world including my Aunt Agatha who choose not to seek 
>involvement in one of these intermediary groups of stakeholders, should be 
>offered the opportunity of consultation.
>
>Philip
>
>
>

--
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