[ga] Re: Individual Stakeholders Constituency

[Bret Fausett <fausett@lextext.com>]

Joe, Thanks for jumping in. A couple of points of clarification.

Joe Sims wrote:
> 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). 

The proposal Kent made and the one I endorsed was for a reform within the
DNSO structure or whatever replaces the DNSO. I don't view it as a
substitute for the At Large and what Denise is working on. They may be
complementary. I make a distinction between (a) online voting for At Large
Directors (which I still think is a good idea, but I accept that I've lost
that argument for the time being) and (b) representation of individual
domain name registrants (not "users" generally) in domain name policy.
Whatever happens with Denise's efforts, giving equal weight to domain name
registrants within whatever subsidiary policy structures comes to exist
around DNS policy makes sense too.
 
> 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?

A policy that impacted registries and registrars to such an extent that
registrants were also hurt really wouldn't help registrants at the end of
the day. I wouldn't put such policies into the category I described. Yes, on
most things, there needs to be balance. Caps on registry fees, for example,
have no beneficial effect on registries but that's not a reason not to have
them. 

>                                        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 wouldn't disagree that it would be reasonable for the ICANN Board to, say,
give greater weight to an opinion expressed by the International Chamber of
Commerce than to a contrary view expressed by an individual business. At the
same time, it would also be reasonable for the Board to conclude that a
well-documented, constructive opinion of an individual small business is
characteristic of the views of other small businesses, even though it is a
single contribution and other small businesses have elected not to show up
and make their opinions known.

Giving individual domain name registrants the ability to participate in the
DNSO's Names Council though (or the evolved gTLD policy body) might serve to
ensure that the unique interests of this class of individuals is given
greater weight in deliberations and at a point in the deliberations where
their input could make a difference.

   -- Bret

> 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.

--
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