Re: [ga] NC BS

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

Phillip and all assembly members,

Philip Sheppard wrote:

>    Jamie Love raises a key question about defining stakeholders.
> And Jonathan Weinberg has provided a good insight into the divisive
> nature of individual involvement.
>
> Let me propose a few starting points.
>
> 1. "Stakeholders in ICANN policy development" means those directly
> impacted by ICANN policies.

  Yes, and this means anyone and everyone that is a user of any class
of the internet...

>
> 2. Stakeholders in the Internet per se are a different group.

  NO.  See response to your #1.  The MoU and White Paper points
that out clearly.  "All stakeholders or interested parties"

>
> 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.

  No, not necessarily.  Verisign is a provider of a service.  That
service
impacts your Aunt Agatha in one form or another.  As such your Aunt
Agatha is really a higher order of impact as it relates to her or whom
she may interact with using the internet.  Hence in direct effect your
Aunt Agatha is at least on a equal level as Verisign.

>
>
> Conclusion:
> - there need to be different levels of involvement in ICANN policy
> development.

  No.  There is only one level of involvement according to the White
Paper
and the MoU.  I have briefly, and many before me, outlined what that
is.

>
>
> 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.

  And registrants as well as users are directly impacted as to the
compliance
and use of these contracts as these contracts are on a public resource
on
a global scale.  Hence the impact to the Stakeholder/user or any other
class of stakeholder is greater in that sense at least.

>
> 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.

  As are users of those facilities that may be directly or indirectly
related
to the UDRP, Whois, Domain name( ISP users for instance ), availability
( Again ISP stakeholder/users or even web space/page users ), Security
( Again Web space/page users, ISP Users ), Stability ( Of course
all stakeholders/users are impacted directly here ).

>
>
> Individual registrants - like all consumers -  may be indirectly
> impacted by ICANN policies. Is each individual a true stakeholder in
> the same sense ?

  Yes.

> 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.

  Not true entirely.  Policy development in many countries such as the
US and most of the EU and Asia can and is done directly by those
that are interested parties or the individuals themselves.

> 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.

  And this "Recommendation 19" is fine as far as it goes.  However it
does not
go far enough.  As such it is invalid as it applies to individual
stakeholders
as it tends to clump them into categories that they may not wish to be
clumped into, or do not fit into.

>
>
> 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.

  More than that.  Your Aunt Agatha should if she so chooses, be able
to have both a voice and a VOTE in any ICANN policy or issue
being considered for a policy decision.

  Now you have again shown Phillip, and I am not blaming it strictly on
you,
that the "NC BS" Thread is well justified as the conclusions here that
you
have stated are predominantly invalid, or pure BS....  This is also why
many are upset with ICANN in general and why the Rebid motion
was put forward...

>
>
> Philip

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k 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:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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