Re: [wg-review] Bill of Particulars

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>]

Ken:
Try to keep it professional, Ken. The issue posed in my post was the imbalanced *structure* of the constituencies. I look forward to a reasoned response to the points below. 

>>> "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@dninet.net> 01/03/01 10:51AM >>>

while i craft my response milton, please turn that finger around and point
it back at your own constituancy

—-----

1. The IP constituency represents a particular SUBSET of business/commercial
interests, a subset that is based entirely on a particular policy
position(protect IP and forget anything else). But there is no counterpart
on the other side of the policy spectrum, e.g., a civil liberties/free
expression constituency. Since TM rights are BY LAW bounded by free
expression rights and do not in any country's legal system constitute an
absolute right, such a structure is inherently biased in a particular policy
direction.

2. ISPs, Registrars, and registries are all businesses. Why is there a
separate B&C constituency?

3. ccTLDs, who are asked for 40%+ of ICANN's budget, receive 1/7 of the
representation on the DNSO, which in turn receives 1/6 of the Board
representation.

4. CcTLDs are registries. What is the justification for making them a
separate constituency? (There may be strong justifications, but I haven't
seen it yet.)

5. Why was the gTLD constituency restricted to NSI, when there were, prior
to ICANN's creation, other prospective and actual, functioning gTLD
operators? Why are there no plans to include new, ICANN-designated gTLDs in
that constituency? Why should gTLDs have to be in the ICANN root to be
accepted in the constituency - shouldn't they, as prospective registries,
have a stake in affecting ICANN policies?






--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html