[ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] The public perception
this point is extremely well done. My analysis is that the key missing
element is the Registrant Constituency.
1. this is obviously a member of the DNSO, hence the DNSO to stay.
2. the DNSO should be a place for Registrants to dialog with Registrars and
Registries before suing them.
3. the Registrants constituency should have a major law firm on retainer to
act on behalf of the Registrants.
4. this is why we had started, mostly with European and Asian support a
Registrant Constituency bootstrap and informed the GA, the ccTLD and the
BoD. With the intent to follow the Constituency set-up procedure. But that
was just a few days before Lynn's earth break.
5. The main problem we identified were the ALSC, Dennis Jennings, Joe Sims,
Philip Sheppard, Joop and you. (please note that this is not criticism,
just a postriori evaluation. People want to do their best, but their vision
and and agenda may confuse a lot).
Joop as the promoter of the IDNO and you as the promoter the Individual
Constituency : you took over a need that everyone accept but you did not
fully address it yet. Dennis Jenning as the promoter of the Singapore
compromise mixing DNSO and @large and Joe Sims accepting and integrating
it. We identified and you rapported the problem at the WG-Review. Then the
ALSC added to the confusion mixing individual stakeholders and registrants
to capitalize on yours and Joop's efforts - as Esther is doing now - to
try to get a number. And now the icannatlarge.com adds to this confusion.
- you have @large constituencies: individual users, individual site owners,
non comm organizations, Businesses. They have many different concerns. One
of them being the DNs.
- you then have the DNSO constituencies: registries, registrars, resellers,
registrants, IP people.
Among the registrants you have individual site owners, corporations, non
comm, bulk registrants, resellers, etc. Confusing them is the reason why
the DNSO is ineffective. The solution was quite simple and we worked hard
together (you, Joanna, Sotiris, Eric, Joop, DPF, William, Karl, etc..) on
it at the WG-Review. It was to help YJ Park in having the WG-R and the ALSC
teaming with the same mission and duration to jointly reorganize the @large
and the DNSO. Rendering to the @large what belongs to the netwide aspects
and rendering to the DNSO what deals with the DNs. This dismisnished the
weight of the NC and helped delaying the ICANN reforms. Is that why Philip
killed the WG-R? or because he did not understand the Internet mechanics
and wanted to protect the ICANN "stability"? Or just because it is not easy
to chair a small group of opponents pretending (and actually) representig
billions of people.
This is why I told you that the IDNO must decide now:
- if they want now to keep as BC like approach for everything which
individual site ownership, teaming with BC and probably an SME Constituency.
- or if they want to be Registrant Constituency oriented, being the
individual site owner part, aggregating with the Corporate and the Bulk
registration administrators on technical issues.
In any case the RC must be established. Either in the DNSO or outside of
it. It must propose the Registrants services like:
- permanent registration solutions
- anti-UDRP protection
- legal representation
- ICANN/TLDA/IETF etc representation
- consumer organization relations
- information and technical support
On 17:17 29/03/02, DannyYounger@cs.com said:
>When one reads through the comments posted to ICANN's Public Forums at
>http://forum.icann.org/ one comes away with the impression that the public
>perception of ICANN's failure is directly tied to the belief that ICANN has
>chosen to do little or nothing to protect the public from the predations of
>abusive registrars and registries.
>The public has the expectation that ICANN is supposed to do "something", and
>is frustrated by the fact that ICANN rarely seems to act to resolve what many
>consider to be an ongoing spate of problems.
>When ICANN Staff fails to respond to allegations of fraudent practices posted
>to its Public Forums, then ICANN comes to be regarded as a useless paper
>tiger, an organization without teeth that either cannot or will not control
>those entities that are the sole source of its funding.
>The public expects ICANN to function as an industry regulator, and it cannot
>comprehend why ICANN does not act in a timely manner to protect registrants
>from the abusive business practices of certain industry players whose actions
>are purportedly governed by the terms of contracts established with ICANN.
>ICANN's point of view has been summarized in these comments:
>Louis Touton: The way this comes up in practice is that ICANN gets dozens,
>if not hundreds of complaints per day. We don't view it as our job to adjust
>individual transactions. This is the responsibility of the Registrar. We do
>however monitor the situation; discern trends and then act on systemic
>At issue is whether ICANN should in fact be acting to resolve issues that
>relate to the business practices of particular registrars, rather than only
>acting on issues of a systemic nature.
>The Committee on Evolution and Reform has asked: What are the real problems?
>Certainly one real problem is the perception that ICANN has become a lackey
>to the interests of those registries and registrars that financially prop up
>its regime, and that it seeks to further ingratiate itself with this
>particular segment of the Internet community at the expense of the public
>interest. Accordingly, any action taken by the Board to further enhance the
>influence of registrars and registries in the ICANN process will be viewed by
>the public as further proof of how corrupt the organization has become.
>This particular set of stakeholders already wields far too much influence
>within the ICANN organization, and any restructuring effort which seeks to
>grant them even greater status (such as has been proposed in the Lynn Plan)
>should roundly be rejected.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html