Re: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term at the ICANN Board

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sun, Sep 24, 2000 at 09:49:53PM -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
> > The GA was not intended to duplicate the role of the atlarge.
> 
> It doesn't.  And nothing proposed would duplicate the at-large.

If the GA directly elected board members, it would effectively 
duplicate the atlarge.

[...]

> > Yes.  And the DNSO, like all the SO's was intended to provide focussed,
> > "expert" input relative to the subject matter involved.  The other SOs 
> > are also heavily dominated by the interests involved.
> 
> Exactly.  So please, point out to me where the average domain name
> owner, who is most effected by these decisions, is represented in the
> DNSO, Kent.

I did, but you didn't read.  The average domain owner is a business.

> Also, please, educate us on how the IP constituency is an expert in
> the subject of the DNS.

"Expertise" in the SO's was not intended to only be technical 
expertise. Any relevant expert opinion would be included.  It is a fact 
that on a policy level, domain names interact with trademarks.  
Experts in that area are necessary.

[...]

> > Completely and utterly false.  You really should know better than to
> > spread such a myth.  The vast majority of domain names are registered by
> > commercial entities -- 80% or more of all domain names are commercial,
> > according to NSI.  But wait -- maybe you are claiming that the clear 
> > majority of domain name holders -- ie, commercial interests -- are 
> > inadequately represented in the DNSO?  Could that be it?
> 
> I love this, Kent.  Talk about a manipulation of terms.  "Commercial
> interests" includes those small businesses, Kent, which do not fit
> into any of these constituencies.

Here are some relevant sections from the business constituency charter:

    "a) Any association representing or organization comprised of
    for-profit corporations whose primary goals include representation
    of the business and/or business development interests of their
    members..."

    "b) Any legally recognized for-profit business enterprise that has been
    delegated a domain, that uses the Internet to conduct for-profit
    business and that has been in business for at least one year." 

    "1.  Business Constituency funding requirements shall be fulfilled
    through membership fees that are raised in such a way as to ensure
    that no unreasonable barriers are created for membership in the
    Business Constituency for commercial/business entities or business
    organizations or any kind or size."

The membership fee for small businesses is set at 100 euros/year, and 
associations of small businesses can be formed to split those costs.  
There are no effective barriers to membership for a business of any 
size.  There is nothing preventing *you* from joining.

>  So while they VASTLY are more
> closely "individual" domain owners, they are also commercial, and when
> they register their domains, they do so in a commercial manner, and
> are thus commercial entities.  Those statistics are also impossible to
> verify.  There is absolutely no way that that number could have been
> arrived at with any level of accuracy.

The figures came from NSI, quite some time ago.  But it is completely
obvious to anyone who doesn't take pride in ideological blindness that
the vast majority of growth in domain names has been driven by
commercial entities.  This is just a fact.  There is a reason that .com 
is by far the largest TLD...

[...]

> > In numerical terms the primary imbalance in representation in the NC is,
> > in fact, the registries and registrars -- more than a third of the 
> > votes in the NC are reserved for that very narrow slice of humanity.  
> > However, they make the claim (with some justification) that they are 
> > the entities most directly affected by ICANN's actions, and that they 
> > also represent the greatest amount of expertise concerning the issues 
> > that affect registries and registrars.
> 
> 1/3 is not domination, Kent.

No, I didn't claim it was.  It is a substantial independent block; you 
claimed that the NC was *entirely* domainated by IP interests.  I was 
illustrating your error.

[...]

> The ISPs, Kent?  The ISPs are supposedly represented by two lobbying
> groups, who by no stretch represent the average ISP.

Actually, there are 34 members of the ISPCP, not 2.

> The largest
> members of the ISP constituency also have strong ties to interests
> in the IP area.  The same is true of those in the commercial area.

Large entities are more likely to own trademarks and understand them 
as objects of value, than small entities.  This is not the same as 
"having strong ties".

> The non-commercial even is strongly dominated by the ISOC,

This is simply nonsense.  

[...]

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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