Re: [ga] The Real World

[Sandy Harris <sandy@storm.ca>]

Kent Crispin wrote:
 
> Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >*Any* representation scheme that gave equal weight to the various users
> > >of the domain name system would end up with business getting an
> > >overwhelming majority of the votes.

Correct, if by "users of the domain name system" you mean domain
holders and administrators.

However, ICANN is not an association for DNS users. It is incorporated
as a "public benefit" corporation. I think that implies that whatever
mechanism is adopted should ensure that the public interest comes first.

Open elections for half the board is one mechanism that might ensure
that. No other mechanism I've heard proposed does.

The ALSC suggested six elected directors. This strikes me as the
worst of both worlds. It reduces the number of At Large directors
enough to destroy the original 9/9 balance, but it does not seem
to solve any of the quite real difficulties with running such an
election. That's just as hard whether you're electing a single
director or the whole board, or anything between.

Lynn suggests involving governments more. This flies in the face 
of many things said, and widely agreed to, in the original process
of creatinbg ICANN. There are also a whole range of issues around
non-representative and/or corrupt gov'ts, undue influence of
various lobbies there, ...

I've been suggesting giving net-based public interest groups like
EFF and CPSR board seats. That might be preferable to some of the
other proposals, but even I don't think it's a really good answer.

What would it take to turn NAIS into a recognised constituency? 

Anyone got other suggestions that might meet the basic criterion
of ensuring adequate public representation?

> > I am not so sure, because I confess that I don't have hard facts in
> > support/denial of either position, but may I note few simple things.
> >
> > a. Having the majority of the votes is one thing, not allowing an important
> > stateholder to have any vote is a different one. The fact is that the
> > non-commercial individual users not only do not threat the consistent
> > majority of the business, but are even precluded from having a constituency
> > and a vote.
> 
> You are mixing two things: the idea of representation of the interest of
> individuals, and the idea of an individuals constituency as a practical
> construct.  There is very wide support for the former, in ICANN, and in
> the constituencies.

There's a third thing to consider, and I think it is the basic issue.
It's not just that the public interest must be represented. We need
mechanisms that ensure that when it conflicts with narrower interests,
there's at least a good chance the pubic interest wins.

> However, there is much less support for the latter, and for good reason
> -- the various activities in that area have been essentially incoherent,
> and dominated, not by the actual interests of individuals as they
> pertain to the domain name system, but rather by the interests of
> zealots and would-be demagogues, advocates of generalized internet
> democracy, speculators, alt-root proponents, kooks, and other vocal special
> interests that are in fact a vanishingly small proportion of the real
> individual users of the Interenet/DNS.

Yes, there's a real problem there.
 
> That is, those who oppose such a constituency oppose it because all
> *practical* experience indicates that not only would such a constituency
> fail to represent the interests it proports to represent, but it
> would be essentially be an insane playground for kooks.  This is in
> almost all cases a good-faith concern about a very real problem.  It is
> one thing to have kooks yelling at you; it is a totally different thing
> to put them in the cockpit and let them fly the plane.

Granted, net.loons exist and some of them are here. Usenet, Slashdot
and quite a few other net institutions survive despite a substantial
kook presence. Why shouldn't a constituency structure?

Granted also that various groups have axes to grind and might consider
a constituency structure a handy grindstone. How is that worse than
having a registrars constituency, let alone the IP bunch?
--
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