RE: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Weinberg document

["Cindy Merry" <tomerrys@inter-linc.net>]

Have looked through Elisabeth's posting and found many relevant questions.
I've added a few of my own.  I apologize for the length.

Cindy Merry


3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC

Since the very beginning the question of relations between the DNSO GA and
ICANN AtLarge arises. This is in my opinion due to the fact that the DNSO
GA is the unique place within ICANN process which is really open to
everybody, and that AtLarge needs a lot of work to became such.
a. The ICANN AtLarge membership raised a lot of expectations within
   Internet users. More and more of them are aware about Internet impact
   on everything and everybody.

(Cindy Merry writes)  I'd like to know how more and more Internet users are
becoming aware about ICANN?  What method does ICANN use to communicate with
Internet users?

b. Initially estimated at 5 to 10 thousand, eventually 158 thousand
   people answered the call to became an ICANN AtLarge member, then
   elected 5 ICANN Directors.

(Cindy Merry writes)  Again how did the 158 thousand people know to answer
the call and how did they select the 5 ICANN Directors?

c. AtLarge members are not provided adequate means of communication, either
   between themselves, or within 5 elected ICANN AtLarge directors
   (whatever efforts might be made by some of them individually). During
   the AtLarge pre-election questions, the public and candidates were
   separated and isolated into regional boxes. Whereas I consider that
   geographical diversity is indeed one of the best decisions in the
   ICANN international process, it should not have been used to split
   members into non-communicating pre-electorate boxes.

(Cindy Merry writes)  If communication is done through a method like this
WG, it would drive the normal person crazy.  I normally get 15 to 20
e-mails a day.  This WG has filled my special folder for WG Review every
day and requires intense concentration .  Trying to absorb every comment in
every posting has been extremely trying.  Is there a specific method of
bringing appropriate concerns to the AtLarge population?  Who defines what
the specific concerns are and also keeps the "conversation" on target? How
does the AtLarge representatives talk with their "constituents"?  Even in
the US we don't expect every Senator/Representative to individually
communicate to every constituent every issue.  Maybe we need to add to the
overall suggestions a method (I don't have the method figured out) to
publicize better what is being presented and decided by ICANN.

d. Are the terms of reference for AtLarge Directors defined ? What are
   the duties imposed on AtLarge Directors - shall they act focusing on
   individual Internet users ? Personally I believe that such shall be a
   case. There is a lot of logic to that - with the exception of the DNSO
   GA the consumer perspective is not mentionned in any SO's.

(Cindy Merry writes)  Focusing on the consumer perspective would be nice
and probably forward thinking.  The problem that has been discussed
repeatedly in this WG is which "consumers" carry more weight and have a
more vested interest in these decisions.  As an individual and a small
business my concerns usually match up, however if you look at those making
a "living off the internet" they appear to want different results than
someone like me.

(Elisabeth continues)    If we focus
   for example on the cost of Internet for individuals, the cost of
   domain name or email address may be neglected as compared to the
   telephone cost (or any ADSL cost). Just look on your telephone bill,
   and if some of US or Canadian colleagues are lucky to have local
   communications for 10 cents or less for unlimited duration, in Europe
   the cost is horrendous, and by second. I do not know about any young
   people not being revolted against telcos, making profit by many
   orders of magnitude superior to whatever Registrar or Registry.
   If we focus on the IP numbers - several years ago it was expected
   that with the Ipv6 each and every user will be served. Is this
   expectation still true ? How the Ipv6 numbers distribution will
   affect users - do you think it is only technical bothering matter
   for ASO ? Who are the ICANN AtLarge Directors looking on the
   Internet cost globally and from user consumer perspective ?
   Shall the ICANN AtLarge Directors be helping to understand these matters
?

11. [IDNH] individual domain holder constituency, Report requested by WG-
Review Members

The IDNH DNSO Constituency is sometimes perceived as the panacea to the
AtLarge and DNSO problems - I do not believe it shall be, as the consumer
Internet perspective on ICANN is much larger than the domain names only.
But there are some issues focusing on the domain names itself, and
therefore I am in favor of the IDNH constituency under some conditions.
I wish it to be an association of many associations of individuals.
I wish these group considers the very important issue, the status
of domain name and considers all hypothesis and impacts on global scale.
What if the status is property like a house or a land ? Usually there
is taxation when assets are sold ... What happen if people divorce
and dispute about domain name ? How domain names could be inherited
by children from parents ? And what if no designated heir ? Etc, etc.
What if the status is just holder, like passport holder (you cannot sell
it) ?

(Cindy Merry writes)  Probably why this WG has spent a lot of time talking
about what a domain name is and if it is owned or held.  Until I read the
different opinions stated in this posting I would have assumed that I owned
my domain name with it's TLD until it was time to renew - a lot like
copyrights but with a shorter period of time.  I know that I agree with
protecting a trademarked name up to a point but can't say that I appreciate
people holding names they're not using and then trying to sell them to me
or my clients for huge amounts of money.  This is a pointless and greedy
strategy.  A domain name should be for communication purposes...a simple
way for an Internet traveler to find what they are looking for and not a
deceptive name that leads you where you don't want to go.  A perfect
example happened to my client, a physical business called the "Branson
Mall".  When we went to get a domain name to create a site, the name had
been scooped up by someone who than offered to sell it to us for a price
that could go from $ 8,000.00 and up.  We didn't pay it and we didn't fight
it, we just found a different name that is not as appropriate and not as
easily found by our customers.  Who got hurt?  Our customers and our
business, and the effective use of the Internet.


3bis. [Funding] ICANN Directors. ICANN and DNSO Cost and Funding

There is a cost of running associations, have meetings, reliable servers
and mailing lists preserved over time.
There is a lot of wisdom in Peter de Blanc message
  http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00362.html
How raise funds ?

(Cindy Merry writes)  Of course the problem with this is I would pay $ 25
to participate, but what about the age-old problem of those who can't
afford to pay but still want to participate?  If the Internet is a business
concern we can all understand the pay to play concept.  If the Internet is
something new that goes beyond a simple business than we've probably got to
find a  way to keep from turning it into the age old "the one with the most
money wins".  On the other hand, it does cost money to run associations,
preserve mailing lists, etc. and few would be willing to volunteer to such
a daunting task.  So balancing the needs of funding with the desire to have
as many people participate as possible becomes a fundamental point in
governing from the ground up.



--
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