[ga] Individual Stakeholders Constituency

["Joe Sims" <jsims@JonesDay.com>]

For obvious reasons, I hesitate to jump into this debate, but what the heck
-- I offer, as should be obvious, personal views only.

What Kent has proposed and Bret has endorsed is simply a varient on what
Esther and Denise and others are trying to do:  create some structured way
to organize and present input from individual users (whether domain name
holders or not).  On this point, I agree with Jamie Love and Bret that all
Internet users that are interested in doing so should be able to
participate and make their views known in ICANN.  The debate has not been
over this point, but over what kind of mechanisms are acceptable or
workable, with the latter incorporating notions of informed participation
as well as the pure logistics of the mechanism.  In my view, global on-line
voting is not workable today, so it does not pass the test; whether it will
be workable at some point in the future is unknown, but if that ever
happened, it would at least be eligible for consideration as one of the
alternative mechanisms.  There are undoubtedly other mechanisms, however,
that would pass both hurdles today, and the productive focus of those
interested in this area would best be aimed at creating those mechanisms,
and showing that they pass the workability hurdle.  When and if that
happens, there should be no objection to including that mechanism within
the ICANN structure.

Having said this, some of Bret's earlier postings do not make sense to me.

                                                                                          
 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.                               
                                                                                          
                                                                                          


Bret, do you really think that the converse is not true?  How could
registrants and other end-users be served if there were not sufficient and
functional registries and registrars?  Isn't the real point that there
needs to be a balance?  I even think I agree with your point that no
interests are more important than those of end users, and that registrars
and registries are servants of those interests, but that still leaves a
question of how those end user interests are best served.  My personal view
is that an environment that provides relatively low-cost, relatively
efficient and highly stable and dependable resolution services best serves
those end users, and that obviously means that we have to have productive
registries and registrars to make that happen.  Again, we could debate
exactly how to best get to that goal, but I don't really see how you could
argue it is not the right goal.

                                                                                          
 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.                           
                                                                                          
                                                                                          


  I agree with the first point, and think that is in fact the crux of the
debate.  There is, as best I can tell, significant disagreement over
whether "the opinions expressed by those who choose to participate in ICANN
are sufficiently characteristic fo the concerns of the larger community."
I also suspect that this is what is driving various suggestions that
consumer or enduser participation would be more effective (and  potentially
more likely to be representative) if it came through well-established
consumer organizations.  This assumption may or may not be true, and it
does not necessarily answer the argument that individuals ought to be able
to participate as individuals, but it does point out why Bret's second
point is not necessarily true -- or at least why I don't think it really
deals with the point.  Small relative sample sizes of the sort we are
talking about here -- which are clearly not representative of the great
mass of end users -- does raise very serious questions about whether ICANN
would be making informed choices if it acted on the views of that very
small sample -- at least if you believe that serving the best interests of
the mass of disinterested end users, not just the interests of the small
group that actually participates, is the goal.

Finally, let me say that on the question of whether it is "appropriate" for
the GA to have a vote on Jamie's motion, I'm on his side.  This is not to
say that it is useful, or that it will be influential, or that it even fits
within the technical legal "power" of the GA; those are all questions on
which there could be different opinions.  But the GA is supposed to be a
place for debate by anyone that wants to join in the discussion; it has not
to date (whether it should have is another matter) had that debate much
organized, focused, or limited, so the debates have not had that much
influence.  This is likely to have the same result, but if the list
participants (or many of them)  want to make a statement on some issue by
holding a straw poll, go to it.  The value of that statement to most
outside observers will be determined by its inherent logic, and by the
surrounding circumstances that speak to whether it is an opinion that
should carry some weight.  (See above).   I sympathize with Thomas and
Alexander's efforts to try to push for some focus in the GA on the issues
that are actually being debated, and on which reasoned views from the GA
might have some impact, but if the participants on the list want to have a
vote on something else that is not being discussed elsewhere,
notwithstanding the very considerable risk that the result is not likely to
have any impact regardless of the outcome, it seems to me that is their
right.


Joe Sims





--
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