[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [wg-d] NC Elections. Was: ga] DNSO General Assembly - RevisedAgenda



> > And even if the non-commercial constituency and individual domain name
> > owner constituencies are recognized, there is still no constituency for
> > the most important, and largest part of the internet at all, the ultimate
> > source of all the money, the group that trademark law is designed to
> > protect: the users of the internet.
> > 
> > And even if they had their constituency, the commercial to non-commercial
> > balance of the DNSO would exceed a two to one dominance.
> > 
> > 		--karl--
> > 
> ==> Do we forget "At large" ICANN Board directors ?
>     ICANN Board is made by two equal groups, each of 9
>     directors, one from Supporting Organizations,
>     another from "At large".

It is a mistake to equate "at large members" with membership in a DNSO
constituency.  The two groups have very different powers.  And the general
membership is open to many in constituencies/supporting organizations,
hence giving the latter a double voice that is refused to those
significant numbers for whom there is no DNSO constituency (or seat in the
other two SO's, both of which are off-limits to any but a select few.)

>     One moment or another it was assumed that Supporting Organizations
>     represent expertise (professional part), and "At large"
>     shall represent all users, the slicing being intended to have 
>     both weighted equally. Is it no longer true ?

ICANN's goal is internet stability (and "lessening the burdens of
government"). Knowledge of keeping the net stable on a day to day basis is
largely vested in groups such as NANOG and ISPs as much as, or perhaps
even more than, the IETF. Yet the the former has never been considered an
integral part of ICANN and the latter have but a constituency in the DNSO.

And one does need to question the presumption why "experts" alone must
create policy.  Those who are subjected to policy are just as valid
advocates of what a policy should be.

		--karl--