Re: [ga] Re: [ga-full] Individuals

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 18:56 28/05/00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>>What issues, perspectives, and the like distinguish this constituency 
>from 
>>others?
>>
>
>That's an excellent question, that I should have added in my initial 
>message.

Roberto,

Has that question not been answered many times already? Some people just
don't want to hear the answer.

You might want to look in the archives of the ICANN membership discussion
list where we have gone over the differences between Domain Name Holders
and other Internet users in extenso.

Isn't it obvious that the concerns of Individual Domain Name owners are not
sufficiently represented by the Business- and the Non-comm constituency?
The Individual DN owners have serious concerns regarding the security of
ownership (licence-to-use?) of their Domain, both in their relation to big
Business (who may bully them into giving up their Domains due to
"extension" of their TM) and  in relation to Registries and Registrars, who
can unilaterally dictate onerous registration and renewal conditions or
otherwise abuse their unequal relation with registrants.
At the moment only one side of the equation is represented on the Names
Council. 

Of course there is a need for representation of Individual DN owners. What
about Free Speech issues? Future rules about "shutting down" domains for
alleged copyright violations?   
This alone is one of the biggest reasons to have the voice of the
Individual Domain Name owners in the Names Council.
I am talking about adding value to the NC.

It not only affects legitimacy, but it is simply unwise to allow a narrow
interest group to dominate the NC. 

>Personally, I think that individuals, not necessarily just as DN owners,
> but simply as plain Netizens, should have a voice (and a vote) in the 
>process, because their interests are clearly separated from every other 
>existing Constituency.
>This could have been doubtful in the past, when it was not clear how the
> Constituencies would have refined and trimmed their role and charter, 
>but it is clear now, IMHO.
>The voice of the "laymen" is important, I think. 

Many Individual DN owners are far from laymen. In fact many registered
their Domains long before companies got on the DN bandwagon.

As I posted already, 
>the NCDNHC has already excluded (rightfully, IMHO) the individuals/
>families from participation in the Constituency. The GA's role and 
>function is different: it is an instance where everybody comes together 
>(ideally), not the place for who is not in the Constituencies.
>
>If you would like a specific example, take my case: I am participating 
>in this process as an individual, with no affiliation with any 
>Organization, and I do not belong to any constituency.
>While this may be handy now, to guarantee if need there should be that 
>the GA Chair is not expression of a Constituency, it is nevertheless 
>proof that there is something missing in the structure of the DNSO.
>
>>
>>Where is the groundswell of participation from these stakeholders that 
>
>>demonstrates their concern about representation?
>>
>
>You can take the above as a first step.
>I have no idea on how many people are in the same or similar situation, 
>but one of the reasons to reopen the subject is precisely to find out 
>whether the question is of general interest or not.
>
>There has been in the past support from the GA to the idea of 
>Constituency for individuals, and I believe that the reasons for ICANN 
>not to follow up on the question were more linked to the lack of a 
>unified proposal (and no possibility at that time to put together one in
> a short time) than a clear "no".
>
>There are, it is true, some ICANN Directors that opposed this project, 
>as we have even heard directly in Cairo, but OTOH maybe we should put 
>together a proposal for consideration.
>
>Of course, only if there is a sufficient number of interested 
>individuals.
>
Roberto, what is a sufficient number in your view?
The fight against the IDNO constituency has been characterized by
unreasonable hostility  to the idea. 
Many individuals are giving up the fight because they no longer believe
that they will get a fair voice in DNS policy through ICANN's DNSO.  
If they knew that ICANN was going to stop opposing the idea of their
representation, the current number of 179 idno members would quickly swell
to include the thousands of DN owners that have already signed up for the
ICANN at-large membership.

Thinking that DN owners are not interested in being represented is akin to
saying that taxpayers may not be interested in being represented. 
I think the history of modern democracy has proved otherwise.


--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org  

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html