Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

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

Chuck and all assembly members, stakeholders/users or other interested parties,

  I personally believe that Chuck here has adequately expressed in brief
what is basically wrong with ICANN and especially with the DNSO
as well as in part the NC.  The structure is basically skewed.

  I must also express as to Chucks comments/statements below that
our [INEGroup] members have frequently shared much of what chuck
has briefly outlined below, with ICANN, the DOC/NTIA, and
other governmental organizations many many times.  However I
can frankly say that with respect to the contractual obligated
entities (Registries, Registrars, RIR's and a few ccTLD Registries)
that those contracts were and remain inadequate, as well as
unenforceable, in many obvious and frequently stated/expressed
ways on this very DNSO GA Forum.  These concerns and
noted problems could have been addressed some time ago now,
had not the ICANN legal staff been receptive to the than
participating stakeholders/users and many of their suggestions.
Unfortunately they were not receptive at all.  Hence now we
have a mess which is growing in scope and size, that has
damaged the industry as a whole, and stakeholders/users individually
to such a degree that many are, and have called for a rebid of the
ICANN contracts in their entirety.



Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Fact: An organization under contract with ICANN that is required to comply
> with new policies imposed by ICANN is not impacted in the same way that an
> organization that is not under contract.  They are not "equally" affected.
> They are affected in different ways, one directly, one indirectly.
>
> At the same time, that does not mean that the impact to those not under
> contract is not important or even that it is less important.  In fact, I
> would argue that the ultimate users (customers) are what it is all about
> and, if businesses supporting those users ignore that fact, they will not be
> successful over time.
>
> In my opinion, a major problem with the current system of policy development
> in the DNSO and more particularly the NC is that five out of seven
> constituencies are on the user side of the equation and therefore are in a
> situation where they can determine very significant policy issues that have
> no direct impact on themselves.  Moreover, in the past year they have
> regularly ignored input from those who are under contract, with little or no
> regard to that input except to include it as a minority opposing opinion.
> To be very frank, they often 'could care less' whether or not the businesses
> that are contractually bound are impacted in a negative way as long as they
> accomplish what they personally and politically want.  Moreover, they claim
> to represent the interests of the broader user community but there is little
> hard evidence to support that.  The truth is that they represent relatively
> narrow interests at the expense of broader user interests.
>
> What we end up with is a situation where a minority of vocal people have
> undue influence over businesses that are restricted via contracts in terms
> of what they can or cannot do.  It is extremely effective for the vocal
> minority, but I do not believe that it is in the best interest of the
> Internet community at large.  First of all, as many on this list have noted
> many times, the most important users do not even have direct representation.
> Secondly, it results in a non-viable business model for those under contract
> because their mode of operation is controlled by outside special interests
> rather than overall market forces.
>
> Let me cite one specific example to illustrate what I am trying to say.
> Consider the ongoing focus on Whois.  Where has most of the focus been in
> the NC and its Whois Task Force?  It definitely hasn't been on the privacy
> of registrants.  Why is that?  Isn't the privacy of registrants an important
> issue?  Doesn't it impact huge numbers of registrants?
>
> It is critical that all users have strong influence in the policy
> development process but the current system makes it too easy for a small
> minority of users to capture the process and focus only on what they want.
> It also is clear that it is very difficult to effectively involve "all
> users" in the policy development process in a direct way. But there already
> is a mechanism whereby the broad base of users can be represented: create a
> system where users have real choices in their buying patterns and let them
> speak through those choices.  Minimize the regulatory policy control to
> those instances where it is clearly needed (e.g., security and stability of
> the Internet) and let the market work freely.  Then and only then will users
> be broadly represented.  Finally, those businesses under contract who ignore
> the statements made by users in the marketplace will lose.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl@CaveBear.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 9:26 PM
> To: 'ga@dnso.org'
> Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
>
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>
> > As the ERC properly realized, not all stakeholders are equally affected.
>
> That is the same nonsense that told ValuJet and Alaska airlines that they
> were affected more by the cost of their mantainence and freight loading
> policies than were those who were merely passengers.
>
> Those who use the domain name system are just as affected by it as those
> who sell domain names - this is true whether measured on an individual or
> cumulative basis.
>
> (As an example of a large affect on a single domain name holder - One
> could well conclude that the single DNS user IBM would be affected more
> than the total value of neustar by the failure of "ibm.com" to work.)
>
> The "mine is bigger therefore I get more say" argument is one that has
> been one of the primary sources of ICANN's failures.
>
>                 --karl--
>
> --
> 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
> --
> 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 127k members/stakeholders 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
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