RE: [wg-review] Bill of Particulars

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

I wanted to reply yesterday, but I got hio-jacked by family, wanting to
celebrate b'days <way too many, mine>.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 11:33 AM

> 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.

This comment will be terse for the same reason.

> 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?

In order to handle those whom do NOT fall into the above? Rather, that is my
presumption. The KISS method would merge all of those into B&C, that being
the super-class. Otherwise, specific factions of the B&C gather unwarranted
NC reps.

> 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. 

Budget contributions appear arbitrary anyway. Who portioned the pie that way
and why?

> 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.)

The argument is that most are either run, sponsored, or delegated, by actual
sovreign states. States, that have access to force-of-arms arguments. That
is a rather unique position among TLD operators. If this is truely the case,
then there is no need for the GAC and the ccTLD constituency should replace
that representation. However, I have strongly suspected that this is NOT
unversally true. That said, I have also held, and still hold, that gTLDs
need to be held at the same level as ccTLDs. In short, that there should not
be a difference in the degree of respect with which they are treated. It is
simply that non-ccTLD operators are treated so abysmally and ccTLD operators
want no part of such treatement (I don't blame them).

> 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 have always argued that there are no gTLDs, that all TLDs are chartered,
with some having more open charters than others (lack of enforcement). That
view adequately eliminates gTLD as a separate constituency. IMHO, this is
much needed. Yes, I think TLD operators may deserve special representation,
but not three constituencies.

This brings us back, full circle, to the TLD vs ccTLD warz of three-years
ago. The reason for that war was the movement to reduce the ccTLD status to
that of gTLDs (an argument that I have never understood). My argument has
always been to elevate the gTLD status to be equal in treatment to that of
ccTLDs. That is treat them with respect, as individual legal entities (which
they all are). Rather, than some dead carcass to be picked over.
--
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