Re: [wg-review] We are in the starting line......

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 08:16:39PM -0700, Greg Burton wrote:
> At 06:48 PM 12/26/00, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >So, if enough folks decide that they want to get together to form an
> >"Intellectual Property" constituency - that's their choice - but the power
> >of that constituency would be exactly the number of individual voters
> >that it can convince of the merits of its position.
> 
> Interesting concept, although I can see certain problems re:funding the 
> DNSO if adopted. I can also see problems with "tyranny of the majority" 
> issues. A formal constituency structure, while liable to the problems you 
> have pointed out in the discussions regarding the word "stakeholders", also 
> does at least give a recognized minority some voice. (Of course, the 
> perhaps majority of the GA, personal/individual/small business domain 
> holders, have no voice at all under the current situation.)

In fact, the current constituency was developed bottom up -- the 
constituencies that exist (with the sole exception of the NCC) are 
there because the members considered the DNSO important enough to 
participate in from the very beginning.  The constituency structure was 
not imposed from the outside -- it was developed by actual 
"stakeholders" fighting it out (literally).

The NCDNHC, on the other hand, did not have a coherent group arguing for 
it during the formation of the DNSO, and if it hadn't been for the 
support of Christopher Wilkinson, the NCDNHC would not have existed.  

> Then again, what's to prevent Incredibly Big Machinery Corporation, or 
> NanoSquish, or some other (made up) large company from urging their 
> employees to join and vote the party line? No change at all, under those 
> circumstances.

Moreover, some constituencies exist because there is a legitimate
special place for them in the ICANN structure -- the registrars and
registry constituencies are composed of a very restricted set of
entities with very special contractual relationships with ICANN.
> 
> However.....I think I could go for something that kept the constituency 
> structure and made it more fluid (ie, easier for a constituency to disband 
> or be created), allocated 1 NC seat per constituency, and allowed the 
> remainder of the NC to be elected by the DNSO. That's off the top of my 
> head - I'm sure any problems with the idea will be addressed at length :)

The current constituency structure is in fact a very hard-fought
compromise.  Any significant change to the constituency structure will
reopen a set of issues that I guarantee will either deadlock this WG for
months, or doom it to total irrelevance.  Moreover, even if we reopened
all those issues, the final result would be, I wager, not much different
from the current one -- the current constituencies (except the NCC) are
all here because their members fought very hard to be here, and they are
not going to suddenly change their minds.  The TM interests have not
suddenly become powerless; the registrars and registries have not become
any less important in the ICANN structure; business still register the
vast majority of domain names.  None of the basic dynamics that led to 
the current structure have changed all that much.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain