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

[t byfield <tbyfield@panix.com>]

kent@songbird.com (Tue 12/26/00 at 10:07 PM -0800):

> 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.  

well, that didn't take you very long, did it?

the NCDNHC is far from perfect, but it should come as no surprise
that of all the constituencies it would take the longest to come
to fruition: the range of interests it represents is heterogeneous
in the extreme, as is suggested by the fact that its name is a 
*negation* ('non-') rather than an affirmation (e.g., 'registry').
but the fact that, however imperfect its constitution, it has none-
theless been able to come to a consensus on a fairly broad range
of issues would seem to imply that these heterogeneous organizations
have common interests, i.e., constitute a coherent constituency. so
its origins are incoherent but its actions are more coherent; how
exactly does that differ from, say, ICANN itself?

you can (and no doubt will) complain ad nauseam that the NCDNHC is
'really' a top-down creation, but if you REALLY cared about the
top-down/bottom-up issue you'd devote your energy to criticizing
ICANN itself, whose very existence was specified in absolutely the
most top-down of ways, or any number of other targets. the notion
that its existence is uniquely imposed from above seems a bit odd;
and the notion that its actions since its inception somehow bespeak
its origins seems even more odd. you are free to pursue that point,
of course; but i would ask that, if you do, you examine the other
constituencies according to the same criteria--for example, how
does wilkinson's support for noncommercial interests compare to,
say, the legacy contracts of NSI, IANA, or the ccTLDs?

btw, it might be appropriate for you to disclose the nature of your 
interest(s) in ICANN. i've been told by someone who i consider to
be a very reliable source that ICANN staffers have stated that ICANN
hired you to perform various services for them. is that true? does 
that have any bearing on your remarks in this context? personally, i 
have no trouble imagining how it might not; but don't you think you 
could grant a similar benefit of the doubt to the NCDNHC?

cheers,
t
-

\|/ ____ \|/ 
@~/ oO \~@    <http://www.tbtf.com/roving_reporter/>
/_( \__/ )_\ 
\_U__/