Re: [wg-review] Bounced Message from Jon

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

> Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com> wrote:
> At 02:43 PM 12/29/2000 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >there is no algorithm by which the
> >representational weight of the various stakeholder communities can be
> >weighed.
> 
>          I'm not sure, Kent, whether you mean by this [1] that there is no
> way to compute how much representation each of the relevant stakeholder
> communities *in fact* has on the NC, under the current system; or [2] that
> there is no way to compute how much representation each of the relevant
> stakeholder communities *ought to* have on the NC.
> 
>          My guess is that you don't mean [1], since that's transparently
> wrong.

You are correct, I didn't mean [1].  However, I believe you are quite
mistaken when you say that [1] is transparently wrong -- you seem to be
confusing "constituencies" with "stakeholder communities".  Here's an
example to illustrates the error: suppose that we have a constituency
that purports to represent some constituency (say, the "recreational
users of the net constituency" (RUONC)).  Let's further say, however,
that the nefarious Big Corporate ISPs have completely packed the RUONC
with their employees, so all the NC representatitives of the RUONC are
really representing AOL, Mindspring, and so on.  Therefore, the
"representation" of the stakeholder community associated with the RUONC
is zero. 

That is, in order for [1] to be "transparently wrong" you would have to 
answer the following question strongly in the affirmative:

  Do the current constituencies well "represent" their associated 
  stakeholder communities? 

I submit that only in the case of the gTLD registry constuency can we
actually make that claim: there are substantial number of registrars
that don't participate in registrar constituency; there are substantial
numbers of ccTLDs that don't participate in the ccTLD constituency, and 
of course the other constituencies the situation is even more obvious 
-- there are enormous gaps between the "stakeholder communities" and 
the "constituencies".

>  The various NC members quite explicitly act as representatives of
> their constituencies.  It's easy to count how much representation each
> "stakeholder community" currently has:  three members for a favored six,
> one for a seventh, zero for the rest.

You give a simple cartoon of the real situation.  In fact, the interests
of members of the different constituencies are extremely varied.  There
is no reason, for example that a member of the BC would not be
fundamentally aligned with individual domain name holders.  There is no
reason, for example, that a member of the NCC would not be very
concerned about their intellectual property (eg, the Red Cross is very
aggressive in defense of its IP). 

In fact, the constituencies are very heterogenous, and cover a very
broad range of interests.  So, the statement "there is no way to compute
how much representation each of the relevant stakeholder communities *in
fact* has on the NC, under the current system" is quite literally
correct.

> If you mean [2], I agree.  The problem is that absent such an
> algorithm, the current system is incoherent.

You agree, but it appears to me that the significance of that agreement
escapes you:  [2] does not by any means imply that the current system is
incoherent (though it might indeed be incoherent for other reasons).  
[2] is simply an isolated fact.

To review: we agree that (in your words) "there is no way to compute how
much representation each of the relevant stakeholder communities *ought
to* have on the NC".  Given that, then, there is obviously no way that
we can determine appropriate representation for different stakeholders. 
In fact, not only can we not compute how much representation the
relevant stakeholders should have, we don't even know for sure who the
relevant stakeholders are. 

It therefore follows that the idea that the DNSO should be some kind of
representative governing body is fatally flawed from the very beginning. 
It isn't a representative body, and it *can't* be. 

Thus the admonition in the white paper that ICANN should be
"representative" can not be taken to mean that ICANN has to duplicate
the processes and structures of representative government, and no one
who understands the issues thinks it should.  "Representative" should 
be understood more in the sense of "representative sample" rather than 
"elected representative".

It is true that many people operate under the presumption that ICANN is
supposed to be a representative government, or an Internet Democracy. 
But these people are at best mistaken, and at worst delusional.  What
ICANN is supposed to be is a corporate elaboration of the role that Jon
Postel played.   

> The current system features a
> Names Council whose members vote, and whose votes are tallied.  It assigns
> seven stakeholder groups the privilege of selecting representatives, and
> assigns the number of representatives for each.  It is defensible only if
> we believe that six specifically defined groups *ought* to have a
> particular quantum of representation, with a different amount (soon to
> change) for a seventh, and none at all for anyone else.

Nonsense.  And a complete red herring, as well -- you are lost in the
snare and delusion of thinking of the NC as representative government. 

The value or utility of the system does not depend on our beliefs about
who ought to be represented, nor is it particularly sensitive to the
makeup of the constituencies, as long as there are several, and they are
genuinely different.  If there were an individuals constituency, for
example, things would not be significantly different -- the balance of
the votes might shift a little bit, but nothing at all dramatic. 

The problems with the current system are NOT that it is
unrepresentative.  The problems are much more mundane -- the current
system doesn't accomplish WORK. 

And in fact, even from the perspective of the "representative
government" delusion, the NC is not bad.  There are complaints that the
NC seems dominated by business interests.  Guess what? 80% of domain
names are in fact registered for business reasons -- it is no
coincidence that the vast growth in the domain name space is in .com. 
The number of domains registered for purely personal reasons is growing,
but still, that number is quite small in relation to the number of
business domains. 

Like it or not, in the realm of domain names the net is overwhelmingly
commercially oriented, and therefore a heavy presence of commercial
interests in the DNSO is inevitable AND morally justified. 

And, in fact there is no evidence that the interests of noncommercial
entities or individuals are being seriously and specifically damaged; as
Milton points out in his study, the number of udrp cases is tiny
relative to the number of domains registered, and the number of "really
bad decisions" is actually *very* small, relative to the total number of 
domain names registered.

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