Re: [wg-review] Bill of Particulars

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@dninet.net>]

while i craft my response milton, please turn that finger around and point
it back at your own constituancy

with respect to the point number 2 referred to ......a bit of self analysis
would be good here. i have seen the influencial hand of both the cctld's as
well specific anti trademark coalitions but very little participation from
charitable foundations, educational institutions, non profit trade
associations & advocacy groups.

lets not get too particular with that bill of particulars

ken stubbs

p.s. i do appreciate you personal opinions but please make sure that you
continue to reflect them as such.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>
To: <rod@cyberspaces.org>; <kstubbs@dninet.net>; <baf@fausett.com>
Cc: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] Bill of Particulars



Point number 2 should be phrased differently. the problem is not that
individual constituencies are "unrepresentative," but that the constiteuncy
*structure* has been gerrymandered to increase representation of some
interests and reduce or eliminate representation of others.

There is an overwhelming amount of support and analysis behind that
assertion. So much so, that I'm afraid to start typing it up, because I have
a real job to do today and that isn't it.

Let's just see how Ken S. responds to these points about the unreprsentative
structure:

1. The IP constituency represents a particular SUBSET of business/commercial
interests, a subset that is based entirely on a particular policy
position(protect IP and forget anything else). But there is no counterpart
on the other side of the policy spectrum, e.g., a civil liberties/free
expression constituency. Since TM rights are BY LAW bounded by free
expression rights and do not in any country's legal system constitute an
absolute right, such a structure is inherently biased in a particular policy
direction.

2. ISPs, Registrars, and registries are all businesses. Why is there a
separate B&C constituency?

3. ccTLDs, who are asked for 40%+ of ICANN's budget, receive 1/7 of the
representation on the DNSO, which in turn receives 1/6 of the Board
representation.

4. CcTLDs are registries. What is the justification for making them a
separate constituency? (There may be strong justifications, but I haven't
seen it yet.)

5. Why was the gTLD constituency restricted to NSI, when there were, prior
to ICANN's creation, other prospective and actual, functioning gTLD
operators? Why are there no plans to include new, ICANN-designated gTLDs in
that constituency? Why should gTLDs have to be in the ICANN root to be
accepted in the constituency - shouldn't they, as prospective registries,
have a stake in affecting ICANN policies?

I could go on. Sorry, Ken, it's a one-finger exercise to reduce the
rationale behind the DNSO constituency structure to absolute rubble. I look
forward to your response.

--MM





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