RE: [ga] NC BS

["Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>]

[M.Cade asks about my role in the NCC, as if it were relevant to what I
gather is the proposed disenfranchisement of most of the active
participants in the GA.  I don't like talking about myself rather than
ideas, but feel compelled to reply.]

I do post to the NCC mailing list (and attended one physical meeting) but
have never voted in it other than at the physical meeting; ICANNWatch, of
which I'm an editor, had a membership - one that was bitterly contested by
ICANN shills - but I wasn't ordinarily the voting person for that
membership. Since ICANNwatch has no funds (we operate cashlessly, entirely
on donated services and labor, other than the domain name fees which come
out of an editor's pocket) it wasn't able to pay the NCC's levy and I
think we lost our vote and/or membership as a result.

In any case, I see myself primarily as an individual domain name holder,
and as an academic user of the Internet.  In those capacities I'm not
represented well by any existing structure in ICANN.  I certainly don't
represent my university employer, or it me.

The NCC is in any case designed to be dysfunctional: it represents too
many too diverse groups, and unlike, say, the business constituency, it is
painfully engaged in the process of being as open and representative as
possible.  When the groups represented are so very diverse, this is a
cause of near paralysis. The openness of the NCC extends even to the point
of tolerating notorious agent provocateurs in the pay of ICANN and/or
corporate insiders in the ICANN process.  No other part of the DNSO is
similarly open, or subject to similar attacks.

The NCC can't represent the interests I consider central (consumers,
academics) in a meaningful way: individuals can't be members; academics
don't vote their universities which are controlled by administrators.
Those are my relevant identities and they have no place in the NCC,
although it kindly lets me participate as a non-voting observer.  

But non-voting membership is of course very second class, often to the
point of meaninglessness; this will be even more true in the reformed
ICANN, in which all the participants in the various advisory sops will
quickly learn this lesson.

An ICANN that fails to either limit its mission so that voting isn't
important, or that fails to honor the commitment to 50% control by
an at-large made up predominantly of end-users, is going to be an incumbent
and insider protection society.  Unattractive.  Irresponsible.  Unstable.
In fact, doomed.

On Wed, 15 May 2002, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> I apologize for my empty post... I meant to include a clarification...
> which I'll do here.
....
> 
> constituency at ICANN. I'm very interested in hearing from those of
> you in the non commercial constituency about whether you see enough
> diversity that you would support a situation which segregates non
> commercial users, individuals, and then advocacy organizations, such
> as those presently engaged in the non commercial constituency.
> 
>  Michael, I am a little mystified by your individual comment and ask
> for clarification... Perhaps I am mistaken that you are active in the
> non commercial constituency. Where is the "none of us"... coming
> from... I could be wrong of course... and perhaps you aren't part of
> the non-comm constituency. That would then make it clearer what your
> personal concerns are.
> 
> I make one other point which I'd be interested in your views on.  
> Many of the constituencies, if not all... [I actually think it is all,
> but don't know about the registries] allow participation for non
> members. Most of all constitutions meetings are open and are attended
> by observers and interested parties.
> 
> We didn't enough about this issue in the GA discussion, but you might
> draft a comment about what you think the GA should b e if you don't
> like this formulation and forward it via the chair/alt. chair.
> 
> This is work in progress.  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> [mailto:froomkin@law.miami.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 4:29 PM
> To: DannyYounger@cs.com
> Cc: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS
> 
> 
> that would mean....none of us, right?
> 
> On Wed, 15 May 2002 DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> 
> > For those of you who were sleeping, the Names Council has passed this -- 
> > "Recommendation 24 - general assembly. The gTLD policy development body 
> > should have a general assembly whose prime role is to provide a forum for 
> > broad inter-constituency exchange. Consequently, membership should be limited 
> > to the agreed stakeholders who are represented in the policy development 
> > body."
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> 
> 

-- 
		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 hot here.<--


--
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