[wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Bounced message from Jon
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 17:03:10 -0500
From: Jonathan Weinberg <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies]
I think that we in this WG aren't doing anybody any favors (least
of all ourselves) if we draft a report saying something other than what we
think. If the consensus of the WG is that the constituency structure is
pernicious, we should say so. (Myself, I tend to agree with Harald
Alvestrand that it is.) Moreover, we should suggest an alternative to the
constituency structure that would be superior. (That's the harder part.)
By all means, our report should set out alternative
recommendations as well -- i.e., "if the readers of this report are
unwilling to go so far as to enact the sweeping change we have recommended,
here is a set of less sweeping changes that constitute a second-best
solution." But taking the fundamental issues off the table, and out of
our report, won't do anything to strengthen the impact of that second set
At 03:59 PM 12/29/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>I certainly agree with you that adding one new constituency to the DNSO is
>insufficient to make the DNSO more productive and reflective of a
>process. The individual domain name registrants constituency is only one
>example of how the DNSO lacks true representation of Internet stakeholders.
>I think we can agree on modifications that would alter the voting power on
>the NC, and the problem of multiple memberships in the constituencies. I
>would hesitate to sign on to an agenda to radically alter the DNSO
>since that is almost certainly the death knell to the influence of the work
>product from this WG. In other words, we would be wasting our time. Or, am
>I off base? Is there consensus to take on an ambitious program like the one
>Karl and Milton suggest?
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>
>Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 12:27 PM
>Subject: Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies]
> > >>> "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <email@example.com> 12/29/00 09:32AM >>>
> > I suggest we start with threshold questions. For example: Is the DNSO
>constituency structure representative of Internet stakeholder interests?
> > Rod and all:
> > The problem is deeper, much deeper, than the simple fact that there is
> > The real problem is that the existing constituency structure has been
>deliberately gerrymandered to augment the power of some groups and diminish
>or eliminate the influence of other groups.
> > Under the current structure, all you need are ten solid votes on the
>Council. If you have that, it doesn't matter at all what other
>constituencies think, nor what the "consensus of the Internet community"
>You can just block anything you like, or ram through anything you like.
> > It is a travesty to call the current DNSO a "consensus management"
>process. I think Bret Fausett's earlier comments were saying something
>similar. It is a political process in which control of votes counts,
> > I will go a bit further and indicate who controls the votes. There is a
>longstanding axis composed of the IP, B&C, Registrar and Registry
>constituencies. The ISP constituency is also basically part of it. These
>groups have worked out a "consensus" among themselves as to what will and
>will not happen.
> > The current constituency structure makes this possible. It basically
>the businesses who believe in subordinating DNS to trademark protection 4
>constituencies, and those who oppose them one or no constituencies.
> > Consider the following case: AIM, an organization of major European
>holders, is a member of the Business and commercial constituency. That
>organization's representative, Phil Shepard, is on the Names Council. Now
>obviously, as an organization devoted to brand holders, AIM is concerned
>primarily if not exclusively with trademark protection. Likewise, AT&T, a
>major lobbying force, is an ISP, a member of B&C, and holder of hundreds of
>trademarks. So these groups, who do not represent more people or even more
>investment stake in the Internet than, say, the non-commercial
>can play around in three or four constituencies, whereas other points of
>view are confined to one.
> > Just do the political arithmetic.
> > Adding an individuals' constituency is not going to change much. IF we
>going to retain a constituency structure at all (and I'm not convinced we
>should) we need to completely rework it.