Re: [ga] IDNO -- This affects you.

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	Amadeu (whom I also like) didn't make the statements attributed to
him in this thread, so the revisionism isn't his.

	I think Bill Lovell is referring to
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00384.html>.  What Amadeu said
there was that "the original design of the DNSO was to provide a place for
functional interests in DNS to be represented," that "users" got
representation because they were considered to play a functional role, and
that the user group was separated into commercial and noncommercial
constituencies because the two groups were seen as too different to
coexist in a single constituency.  The IPC, he suggests, was added not
because it played a functional role, but because it was unavoidable given
the "IP-DN question on the table."  He goes on to suggest that an
individuals' constituency is unnecessary because "an individual would be
either a commercial or non-commecial user, or both, and such
constituencies already exist."  I don't happen to agree with him, but he
plainly isn't making the "ICANN is a technical body so users should have
no role" argument.

Jon




On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

> Except that this was never true.  How is a business group or an IP group a
> technical constituency?  It isn't and never was.
> Much as I like Amadeu, this is revisionism.  But it isn't credible.
> 
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, William S. Lovell wrote:
> > Skipping past the personality issues, I think a bit of history will help
> > explain the dilemma in which those who want an individual domain
> > name holders constituency faces, and this background comes from
> > some material posted by Amadeu Abril i Abril in the context of the
> > recent election. He pointed out that ICANN was to be a technical
> > body, and the original SOs were defined in terms of their technical
> > function. The purpose was to set up, operate, and maintain a
> > properly functioning internet system, including a domain name
> > system, and that was all.  Consequently, no thought was given to
> > any representation by users, domain name holders, or the like,
> > since they had no technical role to perform, but only to make use
> > of whatever ICANN created.
> > 
> > Mr Abril i Abril then went on to discuss the "policy" scene, and
> > expressed some amusement over the fact that we GA types were
> > (a) forever agitating over "mission creep" -- ICANN was getting
> > itself into policy issues -- while (b) at the same time forever advancing
> > policy issues ourselves out of the GA. We've had numerous instances
> > of ICANN's policy activities, of course, but the latest definitive evidence
> > of its stance on the matter comes from Joe Sims.
> > 
> > Karl Auerbach has correctly noted before that Joe Sims does not
> > speak for ICANN, but in this case Sims expresses correctly the
> > ICANN stance.  As most of you may know, Prof. Froomkin had
> > published a seminal paper some time back that questioned the
> > whole legitimacy of ICANN.  Last Friday, I attended the Seventh
> > Annual Lewis & Clark Law Forum, at Northwestern College of
> > Law of Lewis & Clark College, Portland, Oregon, which had the
> > title "Deciding ICANN Domain Name Disputes: Questioning
> > Delegation, Fairness, and Consent," and a final paper included
> > in the proceedings was a Working Draft by Joe Sims and Cynthia
> > L. Bauerly (neither was present) entititled "A Response to
> > Professor Froomkin: Why ICANN Does Not Violate the APA
> > or the Constitution."  I recite all of that just to set out the following
> > quote from that draft: "ICANN has a very important function --
> > to manage what is essentially the phone book of the Internet, and
> > to make policy decisions relating to it."
> > 
> > In short, ICANN (i.e., the BoD, NC, etc.) is having its cake
> > and eating it.  On the one hand, it was formulated as a technical
> > body and hence no consideration was given to mere Internet
> > users or domain name holders, since they had no technical
> > duties to perform, but on the other hand ICANN itself has
> > presumed to absorb unto itself all kinds of policy issues that
> > go quite beyond those technical matters that initially required
> > only technology-related SOs.  It is thus no wonder that any
> > attempt to form an individuals constituency of any kind is met
> > with what appears to be mere disinterest, but is more likely
> > a concerted opposition.
> > 
> > It is a matter of power, and if one wants to see irony, here
> > it is: the original "technocrats" I would assume were selected
> > on the basis of their technical expertise, and rightly so since
> > there was in fact a fully functional, global Internet that came
> > out of that.  But nothing suggests that any such persons had
> > any special expertise in deciding global socio-economic,
> > political, and other human-related issues as are involved in
> > a global Internet policy. With Karl Auerbach (also an attorney)
> > being the only exception I know of, the present BoD remains
> > in the original "technocrat" mold.  The GA of the DNSO, on
> > the other hand, has within it people from every imaginable
> > walk of life, albeit it, too, has its share of technocrats whose
> > political naivete is demonstrated on the GA lists every day.
> > So what we are left with is an ICANN that seems essentially
> > to be run by its business-related lawyers, the technocrats
> > therein blindly following their guidance, while the one real
> > source of that broad, people-related perspective that is most
> > essential for the development of an Internet that would serve
> > the public, as the Charter and the USG documents require,
> > has no voice whatever and indeed is actively opposed. (It
> > is no wonder that ICANN suddenly dumps everything else
> > so as to take up the technical issue of security -- that is a
> > field within which the BoD will be more comfortable, and
> > so let the users and domain name holders eat cake.)
> > 
> > At this stage in the evolution of ICANN, it will only be
> > through the development of a structure wherein domain
> > name holders and users have a dominant voice in setting
> > those global policies that directly affect them that ICANN
> > can even pretend to act for the public good, and at present
> > it is only the GA (and hopefully soon the At Large) and the
> > broad-based expertise that these people represent that can
> > demonstrate the reality-based perspective on global policies
> > that is essential for the future functioning of the Internet.
> > But don't hold your breath.
> > 
> > Bill Lovell
> > 
> > 
> > DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > >
> > > ...but let's talk for a moment about how this cause may be moved forward.  On
> > > October 4, I sent the following note to the Council:
> > >
> > > With regard to an individual's constituency, Vint Cerf made it clear in
> > > Stockholm that the Board noted the GA's communication on the topic, and
> > > further stated that a "proposal should come through the NC."  He also
> > > commented that, "We would entertain any reasonable proposal in accordance
> > > with Bylaws."   As the current Interim report of the Review Task Force does
> > > not appear to offer a reasonable proposal to expedite the creation of such a
> > > constituency, perhaps the NC would instead consider adopting the following
> > > language:
> > >      "In recognition of the relentless demand for an individuals constituency
> > > and the acknowledged need for better representation of individuals in the
> > > ICANN process, the Names Council of the Domain Name Supporting Organization
> > > resolves to advise the ICANN Board to create such new Constituency upon its
> > > own motion, as such action would serve the purposes of the Corporation, and
> > > would be in accordance with the spirit of the Bylaws."
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00094.html
> > >
> > > The Council (as could be expected) has taken no action whatsoever to develop
> > > a reasonable proposal on behalf of individuals even after sustained
> > > encouragement.  They have once more, in their latest teleconference, chosen
> > > to again ignore the issue.  The only action taken thus far has been the
> > > proposal of "criteria" in the Interim Review Task Force Report that is
> > > clearly designed to keep new constituencies out.
> > >
> > > Those of you that seek to establish a constituency will need to address this
> > > issue.  And you will need to do it now -- the public comment period has just
> > > opened and it will not be open for long.
> > >
> > > Even after you present your Charter/petition to the Board, you will still
> > > need to await the Council's input to the Board on your petition.  That
> > > "input" will be based on this bogus "criteria" unless you act now to thwart
> > > the machinations of those whose goal is nothing less than to deny your
> > > successful application.
> > >
> > > The Review report is in:
> > > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011010.NCreview-report.html
> > >
> > > Comments may be posted to:  comments-review@dnso.org
> > >
> > > The Council is not your friend.  You represent a threat to the balance of
> > > their power-clique.  You will need to fight them on this issue and break down
> > > their barriers to entry if you seek to make any forward   progress.  Good
> > > luck in your endeavors, and I certainly hope that your petition to the Board
> > > will be presented in Marina del Rey.  Best wishes to all of you.
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > 
> > The URLs for Best Practices:
> > DNSO Citation:
> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
> > (Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
> > Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This
> > page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
> > Part I:
> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
> > Part II:
> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
> > (Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
> > available for free down load at
> > http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
> > Part III:
> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> 		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                  -->It's very hot and humid here.<--
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 


Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg@msen.com


--
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