Re: [ga] NC BS - Individual Stakeholders/users a voice and a vote!

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

Bret and all assembly members,

  Yes indeed the view that Phillip expressed for the NC is
very mistaken and does not represent the wishes or
desires of the DNSO GA or the consensus of stakeholders/users
in any sense.  INEGroup members voted on this over 2 years
ago.  It was one of three issues that received a unanimous
vote of those voting that ANY AND ALL stakeholders/users
have an EQUAL footing or level of participation, and that any
and ALL interested parties or stakeholders have a right to
a voice and a VOTE.

  As to Bret's last comment:  Indeed not only Domain Name registrants
but any Stakeholder/USER in any reform model that doesn't allow
those individuals to be heard *and represented with a vote - one stakeholder
one vote* on an equal basis with businesses, intellectual property owners,
ISPs, registries and registrars is not only not viable in the long term, but
not viable presently as we have clearly seen, and not viable in the short
term either...

Bret Fausett wrote:

> Philip, I think the view expressed below is mistaken. Let me explain why.
>
> First and foremost, the interests of individual registrants are not merely
> "indirectly" impacted by ICANN policies. They are directly impacted. From
> the UDRP to the transfer policy to the deletion grace period to the waiting
> list service, practically every issue under discussion in the DNSO
> *directly* impacts a domain name registrant's use of his or her domain name.
>
> Second, I would go farther, much farther, than to say that the collective
> interests of individual domain name registrants are "valid." Taken in the
> aggregate, no stakeholder is more important than the end users of the
> resources under ICANN's management. If an ICANN policy benefits registries
> and registrars, but is detrimental to registrants and other end-users, then
> ICANN has failed. Note well that the converse is not true.
>
> We've had difficulty finding a voice for individual registrants because of
> the concern that the registrants who choose to participate in ICANN are not
> sufficiently "representative" of the millions of registrants/end-users
> around the world. This should be of no greater concern than whether the B&C
> "represents" the world's business users or, indeed, whether even a fairly
> homogeneous group like ICANN-accredited registrars are "represented" by that
> subset of registrars that choose to participate in ICANN's registrar
> constituency. The better question is whether the opinions expressed by those
> who choose to participate in ICANN are sufficiently characteristic of the
> concerns of the larger community such that ICANN and its constituent bodies
> are making informed choices. I don't believe that small, relative sample
> sizes necessarily preclude ICANN from making informed choices.
>
> Third, as to the view that registrants will be best represented
> federation-style by consumer-interest organizations, that's not a
> requirement we place on any other group within ICANN. In the B&C, you
> represent an association, but Marilyn and I represent individual companies.
> You'll see that the same is true in the ISPC, IPC and NCDNHC.
>
> Any reform model that doesn't allow individual domain name registrants to be
> heard *and represented* on an equal basis with businesses, intellectual
> property owners, ISPs, registries and registrars is not viable in the long
> term.
>
>    -- Bret
>
> Philip Sheppard wrote:
> > 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.
>
> --
> 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 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