RE: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:kent@songbird.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 6:43 PM
> 
> On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 11:17:32PM -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> > 
> > > Constituencies:
> > 
> > I suggest that all of the questions you ask about constituencies are
> > irrelevant until the fundamental question is asked and 
> answered:  Should
> > the DNSO have a constituency structure?
> 
> That question has already been asked and answered through a very long
> and ardous process, and the answer is before us: we have 
> constituencies,
> and we have them for very good reasons. 

No, it has been asked, the answer is NOT what we wound up with. The answer
was ignored by the ICANN Bod and they gave us this infarction of
gerrymandered power-blocks instead.

> It is obvious that there are in fact groups (such as the 
> ccTLDs and the
> registrars) that are in a unique relationships with ICANN, 
> relationships
> that are not fairly or adequately addressed by a "one person, 
> one vote"
> rule.  The exact nature of these unique relationships is 
> debatable, but
> that they exist is not.  These groups demand, and in fact deserve, a
> special place at the table.

Yes and, as yet, not all of them have been shown the table, let alone their
place at it.

> The current constituencies are there because there were people
> who made the case for their existence.  They are ad hoc, but that only
> reflects an underlying reality: the parties that have an interest in
> domain name policy come in ad hoc groupings. 

That statement is, at best, disingenuous. The places, for the current
constituencies, were created, out of whole cloth, by the ICANN BoD, using
criteria that no one has been able to discern. All external evidence
discredits your statement. This is the third inaccuracy that you have posted
thus far. Also, there was at least one other constituency that cried out for
creation...it wasn't.