Re: [ga] Who wants "governance" without "representation?"
I agree with Vint very much on the problem of the locked-in consumer.
We have apparently around 200 domains, including
appraising-Microsoft.org, tap.org, cptech.org, essential.org and so on.
It is costly to pay the annual registration fees year after year, and
extremely costly to switch domains. The current DNSO effort to take
away voting rights from the NCC is one more tilt toward the cartel.
One good thing the ICANN board and staff has done is to take a look at
the problems faced by domain name holders, in terms of prices... for
the Verisign and some new open TLDs. Not really as aggressive as I
would like, but they at least recognize this is an issue. But in terms
of voting interests, ICANN from the beginning has not wanted to give
domain holder much of a voice. Hence the failure to create the
individual constituency in the DNSO, the constant threats to remove
voting for the NCC, and the overbalanced representation by the registrar
and registry businesses. Jamie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Schneiders" <email@example.com>
To: "vint cerf" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Who wants "governance" without "representation?"
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, at 13:08 [=GMT-0500], vint cerf wrote:
> > it would seem that eric and I are both correct in the sense that
> > argues that specific knowledge needs to be "represented" (as opposed
> > groups?) and I think the directors must have feel a holistic sense
> > responsibility to Internet as a whole.
> Holistic, yes, but will that be the case if the majority of the Board
> made up of people who make a living in names and numbers? More so,
> ICANN regulates a market, perhaps even a cartel. It seems a bit odd to
> the supplier side make the decisions alone. 'Consumers' cannot go
> elsewhere, neither for their IP addresses nor for their domain names.
> the market decide doesn't work. So?
> Marc Schneiders
> > vint
> > At 09:37 AM 3/18/2002 -0800, Mike Roberts wrote:
> > >Eric is correct. In Jon's initial conception in June of 1998,
there was to be a twelve person board with experts from the names,
protocols and address communities taking nine seats, and the three other
seats to be filled by individuals representing the public at large,
which is a fairly standard phenomenon on tax-exempt organization boards.
> > >
> > >But the important point is that the perspective which the Directors
bring to their work is of the character, "Based on what you know and the
facts before you, what is the best decision for all affected parts of
the Internet?" Having representation from the experts was, in Jon's
view, a way of lowering the risks associated with broadening the
oversight of the DNS from he and his fellow engineers to a consensus
based organization representing all relevant interests.
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
> > Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
> Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html