Re: [wg-review] constituency composition

[Michael Sondow <msondow@iciiu.org>]

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Since it is unlikely that a suggestion from this WG to completely
> restructure the constituency system, perhaps the addition of two more
> constituencies at this time could create a more viable structure for open
> voting, and more diversity of coalition-building.
> 
> One I would recommend is  Individual Domain Name Holders.

Yes, individual domain name holders represent a large portion of the
DNS and should have their own constituency.

> (I could never understand all the resistance to Joop's crusade on this one)

It is easy to understand. Since the constituency would be large, it
would carry weight and would be a major opponent of the ISP/CP, BIZ,
REG, IP, GTLD block. That is why it has been excluded.

> Perhaps the other _might_ be the ISOC.

Here you are making a mistake. You apparently do not know the
history or actual composition of the NCDNHC consitutency, which was
given to ISOC by the ICANN Board and which is still controlled by
ISOC. Even its mailing list is run by ISOC. To give another
constituency to ISOC would be a further outrage. ISOC should not
have even one, since it is a second-level organization whose members
fit into other constituencies (registrars, ISPs, etc.). Giving ISOC
the NCDNHC was like giving ISPC, an association of ISPs, its own
constituency. It should never have been done in the first place.
Suggesting that ISOC be given yet another constituency is a grievous
error.

M. Sondow
============================================================
International Congress of Independent Internet Users (ICIIU) 
        http://www.iciiu.org       iciiu@iciiu.org 
============================================================

> peter de Blanc