Re: [wg-c] Sunday Reflections

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

It isn't clear how much some parties want a broader public
participation.  It is clear that there is substantial resentment toward
participation by persons who do not master the archives of past NDS
wars, even in cases where this is an inefficient way to discuss
particular problems.  For example, private email to people warning them
that they are risking being the subject of public humiliation and
ridicule because of ignorance of certain historical documents is one way
to discourage participation among people who have other interests in
life, outside of ICANN.  

  Jamie

Eric Brunner wrote:
> 
> Craig,
> 
> Thanks for commenting.
> 
> I don't think that taking the DNS to the legislatures will be any easier
> than taking any other complicated policy issue for which non-legislative
> mechanisms have failed, or resulted in the capture of a policy area by a
> non-representative group not acting in the common interest.
> 
> I'm not so much "optimistic" as convinced that the jurisdiciton issue can
> be solved by the territorial jurisdictions -- they may choose to create a
> new aterritorial jurisdiction, "Sunrized and then some" is the flavor of
> the month, but they may also simply affirm the existing legal terrain, and
> more importantly, the principle of public over private law.
> 
> > At whatever level you pitch it, one interest group's strategic success in a
> > process is another's setback. (Even a "non-zero sum" type compromise between
> > contending groups can have its unspoken-of losers.)
> 
> A misunderstanding I hope to get right the second time...
> 
> There is direct interest (parties engaged in the operations of the DNS,
> whether registry operators (ccTLD or gNSI), the registrars, agents,
> integrators, vendors, and ISPs, and registrants. Their "interest" in "names"
> begins and ends internal to the DNS.
> 
> WG-C is one expression of "interest". Issue a "call" today with the same or
> a similar charter and a different, though possibly similar set of participants
> would form a mailing list. Constrain the working language to French, not
> English, and "interest" in this sense would still be present.
> 
> Then there are indirect interests, and trademarks is one example, copyright
> another, and patents a less obvious third, as are any other non-operators
> who seek to influence the activities of operators.
> 
> The rejection of the WG-C work product (interest, however flawed, and the
> wart-density is indeed high) by the DNSO NC means that parties other than
> those with or wanting a direct stake in DNS operations are dominant in that
> body. An effective story for the removal of stakeholders has been told, now
> another effective story for the removal of private law captured by e-ponzi
> schemes in names needs to be told.
> 
> Having sat on a bench with Postel listening to some Brit rant about .mil,
> it isn't clear that the transition is from "high" to "low", but my milage
> varies. What is trench-like about a bill concerning the jurisdiction of the
> present .COM? It is "in" the US, isn't it? We lost the struggle to make the
> DNS sui generis, so it is the subject of trademark law, and in territorial
> jurisdictions the law is at least settled, and stability is pretty damn
> important.
> 
> I'll grant you it is a drag to lobby your congress-critters, but they can't
> help but register in .COM, so it isn't as if they can't be educated that the
> caretaker situation for the DNS couldn't be improved.
> 
> Cheers,
> Eric

-- 
=======================================================
James Love, Director           | http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology | mailto:love@cptech.org 
P.O. Box 19367                 | voice: 1.202.387.8030
Washington, DC 20036           | fax:   1.202.234.5176
=======================================================