Re: [wg-review] Bill of Particulars

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

>>> Digitel - Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@digitel.net> 01/03/01 11:48AM >>>

------1. The IP constituency represents a particular SUBSET of
business/commercial interests, a subset that is based entirely on a
[snip]

]non-starter here with me... the board approved the constituancy structure
]and related application and i am certain has heard your arguments on this
]subject 

This is a weak and illogical response. Your answer is that it's that way because the Board made it that way. It doesn't address the point I made. Which is not surprising, because it's hard to justify the unjustifiable.

]2. ISPs, Registrars, and registries are all businesses. Why is there a
]separate B&C constituency?  academic institutions, foundations, etc are
]economic entities with funding concerns just like any business. should we
]not lump them in here as well.  many individuals who own domains use them
]for personal business reasons, they should go here too according to your
]reasoning ..

You are conceding my point. You are arguing for a broad "User" constituency that includes individuals as well as non-profits and businesses. You have therefore conceded that there is no justification for a separate "Business" constituency other than to give more votes to specific commercial interests. 

]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.
]
]let me see here milton... the registrars who are asked to provide approx 50%
]of the ICANN funding  ..........

Registrars are creatures of ICANN/Dept of Commerce's regulation of the com, net and org TLDs. They get special access to the registry database and a special, regulated wholesale price for registrations via ICANN's accreditation agreement and DoC's regulation of NSI-registry's prices. Tell me: what do ccTLDs get from ICANN? What are they paying for? 

]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.)
]
]send that question over to dennis jennings, willie black, elisabeth
]porteneuve, peter dengate thrush or kilnam chon cause thats where  it
]belongs. i am certain they can provide solid rational reasons for their
]constituancy and i promise you, i will support their logic because i too
]believe that the majority of CCTLD's are "totally distinctive and unique"
]entities.

OK, let someone from ccTLD reply.

]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?
]
]there is nothing i would like to do more than answer this question. maybe
]someday .. but for some reason IODesign decided to include me in their
]lawsuit against CORE  and until their appeal of the summary judgement
]against them has gone its course , i cant (and, frankly,  you know i cant
]milton)  respond this inquiry.

Ambler? CORE lawsuit? Huh? I thought we were discussing DNSO constituency structure and particularly the odd "constituency" composed of one member. I don't see the relevance of the Ambler lawsuit to that, but if you feel constrained legally, I'll respect that. But it seems to me obvious that an action item of the DNSO review should be the immediate overhaul of the registry constituency. And no, we shouldn't let NSI "self-organize" that restructuring by itself.

]i will say Milton that the majority of your questions really dont address
]the key issues as i see them from my perspective (namely individual
]representation, the structure and future of the GA)
]
]I see your  your questions structured so as  to press key hot buttons  (i.e.
]ORSC issues, DNRC issues, and CCTLD issues) but if that is the direction you
]wish to pursue.......

<sigh> 


--
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