Re: [ga] Individual Stakeholders Constituency

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Joe and all assembly members,

Joe Sims wrote:

> For obvious reasons, I hesitate to jump into this debate, but what the heck
> -- I offer, as should be obvious, personal views only.

  Well glad you did Joe.  At least in your comments below it appears
you are trying to be constructive this time.
(More comments/observations and thoughts below Joe's)

>
>
> What Kent has proposed and Bret has endorsed is simply a varient on what
> Esther and Denise and others are trying to do:  create some structured way
> to organize and present input from individual users (whether domain name
> holders or not).

  Indeed this is or appears to be true.  The problem arises Joe, is that these
and this effort have been done or tried before, but were not recognized
by the ICANN BOD or not excepted by the ICANN BOD.  In addition,
there are already several other At-Large efforts underway as I am sure
you know.  I would also point out that the DNSO GA is predominantly
for Domain name holders of one color or another and as part of the ICANN
Bylaws needs to remain so as a DNSO General Assembly ( GA ).

> On this point, I agree with Jamie Love and Bret that all
> Internet users that are interested in doing so should be able to
> participate and make their views known in ICANN.

  Yes.  BUt this does not go far enough.  Stakeholders/users should
also have a VOTE on policy issues that effect them, not just a voice
as Brett, Jonathan and myself pointed out...  This is what is required
to have a level playing field as to representation on the ICANN
BoD as well and to meet the requirements of the White Paper
and the MoU.  Hence as Jamie initiated a motion for rebid would
seem now to not only be advisable but perhaps necessary.

>  The debate has not been
> over this point, but over what kind of mechanisms are acceptable or
> workable, with the latter incorporating notions of informed participation
> as well as the pure logistics of the mechanism.  In my view, global on-line
> voting is not workable today,

  Unfortunately this is where you are seemingly poorly informed.
Global voting has been and is working on a fairly regular basis and
has been for quite a number of years.  On-line Global voting has also
been working for at least 8 years that I am aware of.

> so it does not pass the test; whether it will
> be workable at some point in the future is unknown, but if that ever
> happened, it would at least be eligible for consideration as one of the
> alternative mechanisms.  There are undoubtedly other mechanisms, however,
> that would pass both hurdles today, and the productive focus of those
> interested in this area would best be aimed at creating those mechanisms,
> and showing that they pass the workability hurdle.  When and if that
> happens, there should be no objection to including that mechanism within
> the ICANN structure.
>
> Having said this, some of Bret's earlier postings do not make sense to me.
>
>
>  If an ICANN policy benefits registries
>  and registrars, but is detrimental to registrants and other end-users, then
>  ICANN has failed. Note well that the converse is not true.
>
>
>
> Bret, do you really think that the converse is not true?  How could
> registrants and other end-users be served if there were not sufficient and
> functional registries and registrars?

  Good point here.  I must agree with you on this one Joe...

>  Isn't the real point that there
> needs to be a balance?

  Yes.  In favor of the largest group of stakeholders/users in order
to be representative and to insure that registries, registrars, ISP's
IP Registries, and ICANN itself understand that they are a
servant to the stakeholders as well as a small part of those
same stakeholders/users...

> I even think I agree with your point that no
> interests are more important than those of end users, and that registrars
> and registries are servants of those interests, but that still leaves a
> question of how those end user interests are best served.  My personal view
> is that an environment that provides relatively low-cost, relatively
> efficient and highly stable and dependable resolution services best serves
> those end users, and that obviously means that we have to have productive
> registries and registrars to make that happen.

  Very much agreed.  Unfortunately this is decidedly NOT what we have
sense ICANN's inception.  If fact we are facing registries and registrars
that do not honor their contracts and no enforcement or adequate
oversight by the ICANN Administrators or the DOC/NTIA...
This is therefore unexceptable and clearly shows, amongst other
already well documented and related/discussed/debated other
problems, why and how ICANN has thus far been a dismal
failure...  We the stakeholders/users are paying for performance
that we are decidedly NOT getting....

> Again, we could debate
> exactly how to best get to that goal, but I don't really see how you could
> argue it is not the right goal.
>
>
>  The better question is whether the opinions expressed by those
>  who choose to participate in ICANN are sufficiently characteristic of the
>  concerns of the larger community such that ICANN and its constituent bodies
>  are making informed choices. I don't believe that small, relative sample
>  sizes necessarily preclude ICANN from making informed choices.

  The constituent body's presently do not represent the vast majority
of the stakeholders/users.  Yet many policy decisions are being
made and implemented.

>
>
>
>
>   I agree with the first point, and think that is in fact the crux of the
> debate.  There is, as best I can tell, significant disagreement over
> whether "the opinions expressed by those who choose to participate in ICANN
> are sufficiently characteristic fo the concerns of the larger community."
> I also suspect that this is what is driving various suggestions that
> consumer or enduser participation would be more effective (and  potentially
> more likely to be representative) if it came through well-established
> consumer organizations.  This assumption may or may not be true, and it
> does not necessarily answer the argument that individuals ought to be able
> to participate as individuals, but it does point out why Bret's second
> point is not necessarily true -- or at least why I don't think it really
> deals with the point.  Small relative sample sizes of the sort we are
> talking about here -- which are clearly not representative of the great
> mass of end users -- does raise very serious questions about whether ICANN
> would be making informed choices if it acted on the views of that very
> small sample -- at least if you believe that serving the best interests of
> the mass of disinterested end users, not just the interests of the small
> group that actually participates, is the goal.
>
> Finally, let me say that on the question of whether it is "appropriate" for
> the GA to have a vote on Jamie's motion, I'm on his side.  This is not to
> say that it is useful, or that it will be influential, or that it even fits
> within the technical legal "power" of the GA; those are all questions on
> which there could be different opinions.  But the GA is supposed to be a
> place for debate by anyone that wants to join in the discussion; it has not
> to date (whether it should have is another matter) had that debate much
> organized, focused, or limited, so the debates have not had that much
> influence.  This is likely to have the same result, but if the list
> participants (or many of them)  want to make a statement on some issue by
> holding a straw poll, go to it.  The value of that statement to most
> outside observers will be determined by its inherent logic, and by the
> surrounding circumstances that speak to whether it is an opinion that
> should carry some weight.  (See above).   I sympathize with Thomas and
> Alexander's efforts to try to push for some focus in the GA on the issues
> that are actually being debated, and on which reasoned views from the GA
> might have some impact, but if the participants on the list want to have a
> vote on something else that is not being discussed elsewhere,
> notwithstanding the very considerable risk that the result is not likely to
> have any impact regardless of the outcome, it seems to me that is their
> right.
>
> Joe Sims
>
> --
> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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