Re: [wg-review] Bill of Particulars

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

i will try to address those queries i feel informed enough to answer
milton.. any other comments would be speculative on my part and really s/b
addressed by those whose activities you are expressing reservations on

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.------

response ....

non-starter here with me... the board approved the constituancy structure
and related application and i am certain has heard your arguments on this
subject (especially thru the DNRC)  on numerous occasions. i guess the next
step  you might propose would be for the DNSO to establish
anti-constituancies  (we could have an anti IP constituancy,  anti-business
constituancy, anti registrar constituancy, anti-telco & isp, anti govt)

what we have here is an IP debate which has been ongoing since the IFWP and
certainly isnt going to be solved in this forum.

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

response...
 academic institutions, foundations, etc are
economic entities with funding concerns just like any business. should we
not lump them in here as well.  many individuals who own domains use them
for personal business reasons, they should go here too according to your
reasoning ..

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.

response.....
let me see here milton... the registrars who are asked to provide approx 50%
of the ICANN funding  ..........

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.)

response........
send that question over to dennis jennings, willie black, elisabeth
porteneuve, peter dengate thrush or kilnam chon cause thats where  it
belongs. i am certain they can provide solid rational reasons for their
constituancy and i promise you, i will support their logic because i too
believe that the majority of CCTLD's are "totally distinctive and unique"
entities.

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?

there is nothing i would like to do more than answer this question. maybe
someday .. but for some reason IODesign decided to include me in their
lawsuit against CORE  and until their appeal of the summary judgement
against them has gone its course , i cant (and, frankly,  you know i cant
milton)  respond this inquiry.

i will say Milton that the majority of your questions really don't address
the key issues as i see them from my perspective (namely individual
representation, the structure and future of the GA)




----- 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
>
>

--
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