[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [discuss] Individual representation

Ellen and all,

Ellen Rony wrote:

> Randy Bush wrote:
> >if the academic institution is non-commercial, why would they not wish to
> >join the non-commercial constituency?
> >
> ICANN decided in its skewed perspective that trademark interests were
> different and apart from business interests and both deserved separate
> constituencies.That cctlds were different and apart from gtlds and both
> deserved separate constituencies.
> However, The non-commercial constituency was left as the mop-up catch-all,
> for academics, libraries, non-profits and associations of all stripes,
> museums, religious affiliations, and everyone else.  I ask, is this fair?

  In a word, no it certainly is not fair, not is it in any way representative
of these interests in this sort of hodge-podge "Constituency Model" that
the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board determined, unilaterally, for the DNSO
structure.  In addition the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board made this decision
under questionable concerns about and regarding the existence of any kind
of "Consensus".  This was pointed out just after the ICANN (Initial?) Interim
Board on this decision was made in March in Singapore.  Sense that time we
have seen on these lists not much in any manner of a "Consensus" of
by the majority of the active participants and those organizations that some
represent in one capacity or another.  This lack of proper or verifiable
confirmation of "Consensus" has lead to just want "Constituencies"
usually create, divisiveness...

> >From a practical matter, universities and schools, professors, teachers,
> staff and students surely comprise more stakeholders than the trademark
> community.
> K12 schools are being wired across the U.S. through funding grants enabled
> by the U.S. government.  Schools are incorporating the Internet into their
> curriculum from early grades (I'm on the Technology Committee of our school
> district, 1,300 kids, so I get a glimpse of what is considered
> age-appropriate Internet skills.   Note, too, my email address, as the
> Marin County Office of Education is my ISP.).  Colleges like MIT have their
> entire course catalogue online and that's how students register for
> classes.

  UCLA is doing the very same thing, providing their course catalogue online
and also has remote registration and classes as well.  Yet we do not see
as Ellen correctly points out here, any representation for these students
facility or other educational entities available within the ICANN's seemingly
inane decision for a "Constituency" based model for the DNSO.  Do these
organizations belong in a "Lumped in" constituency of Non-commercial
Domain name owners?  I doubt that many of them would agree.  For
instance like Ellen I am actively involved in our tiny community on several
levels, mostly dealing with our Gunter School District.  We have several
matching funds programs with the state of Texas, and other federal
educational programs dealing with using the Internet to enhance the
learning experience for children from K thru 12, and in one newly
forming Junior college.  We are no considering disengaging from all
federal programs as most of those actively involved are very disenchanted
with this process, which INEGroup provides communications for currently,
to the ICANN, and it's decisions.  Some have independently contacted
ICANN directly, and every one has complained to me at school board
meetings which I attend, that they never seem to be getting any response
from at all.

> The trademark community has a stake because the Web opens the door to
> tremendous business opportunities.  The academic community has a stake
> because it is deeply involved in teaching the next generation of Internet
> users about this technology; the students who will be writing the next
> generation of RFCs, and perhaps unravelling the mess we are developing. The
> academic community has been largely ignored or given second citizen status
> in the post White Paper discussions.

  In fact many of the students at universities today are involved in working
groups with the IETF even today, yet, as Ellen points out, they are not
adequately represented in the ICANN's "Constituency Model" for the

> Schools are developing with Internet use policies for their students and
> grappling with issues like what to do when a student guesses at a domain
> name and lands on a porn site. Or how to set up projects with other schools
> across the continent. Or whether to tie schools in a district together in
> an Intranet or have them go through the county host.  Or projects like
> teleconferencing and a wide assortment of research projects like tracing
> the results of the Americas Cup,, technology plans for the introduction of
> software and the placing of new hardware, designing personal web  pages and
> whether they need IP addresses to set up a server for all the
> administrative/staff/parent/student communication.
> The difference is that this is all for the sake of education, not commerce.
> The trademark concerns over a particular domain name are compelling, but so
> are the varied issues the academic community has to tackle..  [You might
> find the case of CLAREMONTMCKENNA.COM fairly interesting because here the
> issues of First Amendment and  trademark rights intersect on a college
> campus.
> ]
> But in order to participate in the DNSO, the academic community would have
> to be thrown in the mix of the NCDHC or self organize.  Who is going to do
> that?  AAUP (American Association of University Professors?) The national
> PTA?  The Computer Science Department of CalTech?
> Puhhhlease.  This all points out a basic flaw in the constituency
> structure.  It's a defacto insiders club of lobbying groups.

  I am afraid I must completely agree with this conclusion to which Ellen
has so accurately pointed out.

> BTW - I guess people still cross post, but my initial comments were to the
> ifwp list.  This points out that the profusion of lists, the spillover of
> issues, only adds to the confusion over these complex issues.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Ellen Rony                                                         Co-author
> The Domain Name Handbook           ____        http://www.domainhandbook.com
> ==========================     ^..^     )6     =============================
> ISBN 0879305150                (oo) -^--                   +1 (415) 435-5010
> erony@marin.k12.ca.us              W   W                         Tiburon, CA
>                Dot com is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208