[ga] Channels to create an IC

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

From an analysis of the Bylaws, the results of which I posted yesterday,
I think there are indeed two channels
through which members of the ga can initiate proceedings to implement
an IC (Individuals Constituency -- let's
save some bandwidth) within the DNSO. The one pointed out by Vany is
this:
> VI-B (3) 
> * * * 
> (d) Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for recognition as a new or 
> separate Constituency. Any such petition will be posted for public comment pursuant to 
> Article III, Section 3. The Board may create new Constituencies in response to such a 
> petition, or on its own motion, if it determines that such action would serve the purposes 
> of the Corporation. In the event the Board is considering acting on its own motion it shall 
> post a detailed explanation of why such action is necessary or desirable, set a reasonable 
> time for public comment, and not make a final decision on whether to create such new 
> Constituency until after reviewing all comments received. Whenever the Board posts a 
> petition or recommendation for a new Constituency for public comment, it will notify the 
> names council and will consider any response to that notification prior to taking action.

The other one I mentioned is this:

> (c) Constituencies or GA participants may propose that the NC consider domain name 
> policies or recommendations. If the NC undertakes consideration of a domain name 
> topic, or if a Constituency so requests, the NC shall designate one or more research or 
> drafting committees, or working groups of the GA, as appropriate to evaluate the topic, 
> and shall set a time frame for the report of such committee or working group. Following 
> the receipt of a report or recommendation from such a body, the NC may accept the 
> report or recommendation for submission to the Constituencies for comment and consultation, 
> or return the report or recommendation to the body from which it originated for further work. 
> After the report or recommendation is submitted to the Constituencies and the comment period 
> for the Constituencies has expired, the NC shall evaluate the comments to determine whether 
> there is a basis for a consensus recommendation to the Board.

What is necessary is to identify the formation of an IC with a "domain name policy."  Easy enough: someone pointed out
to me that the rule of supply and demand works here as well, suggesting that the "suppliers" (registries, registrars, NSI
(Verisign), trademark owners, etc.) have inordinate power in the running of the Internet, while the demanders (all us
little folk who would like to hold a domain name and carry on our own thing) have no voice.  That's what an IC would
provide.  One hardly needs more proof of the proposition that "business has taken over the Internet" than the fact that
WIPO subsumes its web page relating to its RFC-3 under the file heading "ecommerce."  That the business people are
the "owners and operators of the Internet" with respect to domain names seems to be taken as a given.

Since ICANN was formed under the auspices of the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law ("CNPBCL")
[Bylaws Article II(1)], it must operate in accordance with the purposes of such organizations, which are "exclusively for
charitable, educational, and scientific purposes [Articles of Incorporation, Par. 3]," one may well wonder what those
purposes have to do with business, ecommerce, and the like. The channels are there, and one basis (at least) upon
which the formation of an IC could be supported is thus that it serves those purposes (the accuracy of that same
proposition to the current situation being highly questionable). (I'll not reiterate here all the "bottom up," "free and
open," and other rhetoric sprinkled through the Bylaws and various red, white, blue and green papers.)

Work to create an IC should proceed on both channels, without any more dwelling on history and personalities,
while at the same time work should be proceeding on the drafting of the Charter that such IC would have. On this
issue, at least, there is a direct voice from "GA participants" into the NC -- if the NC turns its back on such a GA-
conceived policy, well, let's cross that bridge if and when we get to it. (Someone will tell me, I'm sure, that this
exercise has already been carried out, to which I respond that if the NC said "go away" and there was no response
from the GA as also provided under these Bylaws and California law, then the ball was dropped.)

Bill Lovell