RE: [wg-review] Bill of Particulars

["Judith Oppenheimer" <joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com>]

Exactly which subset of the IP constituency do professional red herring
represent?

Judith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Digitel - Ken Stubbs
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 11:49 AM
> To: Milton Mueller; rod@cyberspaces.org; baf@fausett.com
> Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] Bill of Particulars
>
>
> 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. ISPs, Registrars, and registries are all businesses. Why is there a
> separate B&C constituency?  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.
>
> 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.)
>
> 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
> dont address
> the key issues as i see them from my perspective (namely individual
> representation, the structure and future of the GA)
>
> I see your  your questions structured so as  to press key hot
> buttons  (i.e.
> ORSC issues, DNRC issues, and CCTLD issues) but if that is
> the direction you
> wish to pursue.......
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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