Re: [ga] NC BS

["Roberto Gaetano" <ploki_xyz@hotmail.com>]

Philip Sheppard wrote:

>
>1. "Stakeholders in ICANN policy development" means those directly impacted 
>by ICANN policies.
>2. Stakeholders in the Internet per se are a different group.
>3. The impact of ICANN policy on e.g. Verisign, is of a different order to 
>the impact of ICANN policy on my non-PC owning Aunt Agatha.
>
>Conclusion:
>- there need to be different levels of involvement in ICANN policy 
>development.
>

Agree, so far.


>If you accept the above conclusion, lets review 1) by reference to the 
>existing DNSO constituencies:
>gTLD registries, ccTLD registries, registrars, ISPs - ICANN policies impact 
>on their business contracts. They are stakeholders.
>Business, Intellectual property interests, non-commercial organisation 
>users - ICANN policies impact on the confidence of themselves and their 
>customers/members to use the internet for e-commerce or non-commercial 
>purpose (UDRP, Who Is, domain name availability, security, stability). They 
>are stakeholders.
>

Here we start disagreeing.
There is no doubt that individual registrants are stakeholders, by any 
analysis of the situation. They are not only impacted by ICANN's policies 
(UDRP, WLS, sunrise, and what else), but also by ICANN's contracts (with 
Verisign, for instance), by the common practices (WhoIs, for instance), not 
to mention that at the end of the day, they are financing this whole shabang 
with the money they pay for their registrations, that only transitates 
through registrars and registries to get into ICANN's bank account.
Philip, you are a distinguished member of the Business Constituency. Let's 
talk business. Have you ever seen a business case with a stakeholder 
analysis that was not including "customers" as stakeholders? I did not.
The fact that the Name Council of the DNSO still does not include an 
essential part of the stakeholders, namely the Individual DN Holders, cannot 
be taken now, adding insult to injury, as an excuse to withdraw them from 
the list of stakeholders.


>Individual registrants - like all consumers -  may be indirectly impacted 
>by ICANN policies. Is each individual a true stakeholder in the same sense 
>? I do not know but their collective interests are clearly valid.  In the 
>non-ICANN world the voice of consumers in policy development is typically 
>heard via consumer organisations. Such organisations exist at national and 
>regional (eg EU) level. This is the format of involvement of registrants as 
>consumers that the NC envisages in recommendation 19.
>

You are right, about the non-ICANN world.
But the non-ICANN world does not claim to decide on policy by consensus of 
the stakeholders.
The CEO of any firm does not make this claim. Otherwise, he/she should 
decide what to do and how to do it with the workers, customers, suppliers, 
and other stakeholders.
The telcos *never* claimed that their policies (see tariffs, for instance) 
were developed with the consensus of the stakeholders. That's why you only 
have consumer organizations attempting to defend customers, but not direct 
customer involvment in the decisions. Incidentally, consumer organizations 
are not consulted either, but that's another debate.
In summary, either ICANN governs by consensus of the stakeholders, and in 
this case Individual Registrants have the right to be heard, including the 
one of being one of the DNSO Constituencies, or ICANN governs by consensus 
of a subset of stakeholders, and in this case the Bylaws should be amended.


>The rest of the world including my Aunt Agatha who choose not to seek 
>involvement in one of these intermediary groups of stakeholders, should be 
>offered the opportunity of consultation.
>

Indeed.
My regards to your Aunt Agatha, who I see has recently replaced the 
legendary protagonist of the early days ICANN: Amadeu's Grandmother. ;>)
Roberto


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.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