Re: [ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] The public perception

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jefsey and all assembly members,

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Danny,
> this point is extremely well done. My analysis is that the key missing
> element is the Registrant Constituency.

  I believe this is where the At-Large comes into the picture as
part of the ICANN structure.  However is seems now with the
Lynn/touton/simms restructure plan that the ICANN staff, and
at least a few members of the ICANN BOD are not in favor
of an At-Large ICANN membership.  Of course many of
the current active Registrants that have been and are participating
knew far in advance that the ICANN BoD and staff would abandon
the At-Large.  It seem now clear that that at least the ICANN's
staff intention.

>
>
> 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.

  Agreed.  This is an element of the DNSO that is very important unless
the ICANN staff wishes to disregard the MoU...

>
>
> 3. the Registrants constituency should have a major law firm on retainer to
> act on behalf of the Registrants.

  INEGroup has it's own legal staff on retainer.  Other groups could do the
same, but the cost is not small...  Good funding will be necessary, and
most of that funding will need to come from the respective registrant
members, as it does with INEGroup.

>
>
> 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.

  Well we [INEGroup] started over two years ago now and has grown
in spurts sense that time...

>
>
> 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).

  Causing confusion seems to be part of the ICANN BOD and staff's
political game.  They play it well unfortunately. :(

>
>
> 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.

  ICANNATLARGE.COM is more and more seeming like a toy of Joop
and Pinder's devise.  As such it cannot in it's current form be representative
of Stakeholders/users be they registrants or not.

>
>
> - you have @large constituencies: individual users, individual site owners,
> non comm organizations, Businesses. They have many different concerns. One
> of them being the DNs.

  To my knowledge there is not "Accredited" ICANN constituency that
represents users or individual Domain Name Holders...

>
>
> - 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.

  In part this is very true.  But some time ago the ICANN BoD refused
the forming of new constituencies.

> 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
> - insurances

  INEGroup provides for these elements for it's members...

>
> - ICANN/TLDA/IETF etc representation

  INEGroup has a few people that are IETF participants.

>
> - consumer organization relations
> - information and technical support

  We [INEGRoup] have a significant consumer protection and information
group within our structure that is quite active on a governmental level.
We also provide some technical support for our members and information
direction to other organization's that have excellent technical information
such as Techweb and Sans.

>
>
> Jefsey
>
> 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
> >problems.  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00133.html
> >
> >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 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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