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

["Chris McElroy" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

Thanks for the response. I will also comment below.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic


----- Original Message -----
From: "Elisabeth Porteneuve" <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>
To: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Weinberg document


>
> Thank you Chris for this message, I will add my few comments.
>
> | Message-ID: <00f501c0763c$5c5714a0$c1128ed1@xmisp.com>
> | From: "Chris McElroy" <watch-dog@inreach.com>
> | To: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>
> | Cc: <wg-review@dnso.org>
> | Subject: Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Weinberg document
> | Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 02:51:57 -0800
> |
> | Now that I'm trying to be a much calmer me I have to tell you. That is
> | something I would strongly support. A constituency, if we must have that
> | system, for civil liberties and civil rights would satisfy me. Only one
> | thing to add to that. This constituency have the ability to review
> | allegations of injustice at the hands of WIPO and that it have some
> | recourse
> | if it finds that they have made a decision that violates the rights of
an
> | individual. Absent an appeals process, there is no recourse for many
> | individuals. That in my opinion has to change.
> |
> | Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> cf. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00554.html
>
>
> 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.
> 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.

Which shows they are interested in what affects them. But out of the
millions of users on the Internet, still a very poor representation.


> 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.

I agree with those statements. Providing an adequate means of communication
should then be the top priority.

> 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. 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 ?

I would say yes they should be helping everyone to understand these issues.
That goes back to better communication, not only between Members but between
Members and the Directors as well.

>
> 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.

I agree here 100%. It is not the solution. When business interests occur in
several constituencies at the same time and individuals mostly represented
by just one, if and when that occurs, is still too small a minority as to
the number of votes to make any difference. AT&T has been selected as an
example. They are an ISP, They are a Business, and they hold several TMs.
They effectively have 3 constituencies to represent them. If they go into
the Domain Name Registration business, They have 4.

Some have talked about the number of votes each constituency should have.
Others have said that members of those constituencies are also individual
domain holders and should be allowed to be a Member of any Individual Domain
Holder's Constituency, as well, if it is created. I agree, but the
Individual Domain Name Holders are just one group like businesses, ISPs,
Registrars, etc., but, the Individual's constituency isn't limited to just
Domain Holders, but to all Internet users, AND it should have MORE votes
than all the other Constituencies combined, therefore having the ONLY veto
to any proposals. Since this Constituency would represent everyone equally,
their opinion should be the determining factor. Since that is not likely to
occur, I only see two options.

A. Simply go to a straight one-person, one-vote system.
B. Let those existing Constituencies draft proposals that do NOT go to ICANN
for approval, but go to the public for a vote to get approved.

Either way, it comes down to a voting system. Some here think, or use the
reason for thier position, that some issues should not be open to public
voite because they do not understand it. Bull. Typical Elitist way of
thinking. I don't want, and I don't believe people want, issues being
decided for us, because a very few think they know what is best for us. If
you don't think they understand it, then you better start educating them if
you want them to agree.

> 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) ?

Yes, all those issues should be addressed. However, it can be one
organization that simply uses votes to determine issues from all Individual
Domain Name Owners.

Something is being left out here. An explanation. IDNH is for Individual
Domain Name Holders and includes all people who have the rights to a Domain
Name. They must be the Registrant or have in writing the ability to speak
for the Registrant, IMO. Each Member can only represent one Domain Name,
IMO. There is of course a BoD to draft proposals at the request of it's
Members or ones that will in turn be given to the members for a vote, IMO.

This does not, however, address the rights of the USERS of the Internet in
general. IDNH is for Domain Holders, but the bigger issue is Individual
Users needing representation. When I speak of one-person-one-vote, I am
talking about all USERS, not just Domain Name Owners or Holders. IMO both
operate better on one-person-one-vote though.

>
> 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 ?

Answers to that.

2. Add IDNHC and others to DNSO.

(Add also IUC, Internet Users Constituency, encompassing all individuals who
use the Internet)

3. Each constituency in DNSO elects one board member - 8

(Agreed, but the number 8 is in question)

4. Each Member is ASO elects one board member - 3

5. Each member of PSO elects one board member - 3

6. At Large elects 5 members.

(I don't think the @Large is currently representative of all Internet Users.
It has done a better job than any other efforts so far and could represent
the IUC represented above as an added Constituency) (If it is to be the one
that does do that, then it should have more representation.)

(This structure currently holds special interests above Individuals who use
the Internet. Not acceptable IMO. If it was like this . . .

1. Each Constituency plus the addition of IDNH elects one board member. (8
for these examples. May be more if other Constituencies are added)
2. ASO elects 3
3. PSO elects 3 (Although I would like more information why they elect 3 vs
Constituencies only one for both the ASO and PSO)
4. Then @Large if representing all Users should have 15. One more than all
the others combined, This is a good "Checks and Balances" System IMO. Since
all interests can be represented in the @Large, the veto power would be held
there.)

7. While each board member would serve "the global internet community", it
would be natural that each board member would carry the mandate of their
respective electing group.

(Exactly why the Checks and Balances should be implemented by giving extra
weight to the @Large or IUC.)

7. Each electing group with a board seat pays for ICANN budget divided by
total number of board members, times number of seats per electing group.

(Disagree here. Registrars simply pass their cost onto the IDNH as it is.
Therefore Individual Domain Owners would be paying for their seats as well
as those of the Registrars) (Since they have seperate concerns, they cannot
be combined as a Constituency, but the direct cost could be taken from the
price of Registering a Domain Name to pay for the seats of both, the
Registrars and the IDNH). (A Direct payment that the Registrar simply passes
on to the ICANN Budget)

Example-

if there are 18 board members, DNSO groups have elected 8

Business
Non Commercial
ccTLD
gTLD
ISP
Registrar
Intell. Property
IDNHC

( Business and Intell. Property are redundant) (Intellectual Property or TM
concerns are simply one of the issues that the Business Constituency is
concerned about. It should not be a Constituency itself. That would be like
adding an IDNH Constituency, then adding another Domain Name Protection
Constituency) (Another question involves whether ISPs and Registrars need
their own at all. They are a type of business, not different from anyone
else whose business is done on the Internet. Why don't we have a Hosts
Constituency and a Web Designers Constituency? While we're at it, why not
have a Newsletter Publisher's Constituency and a seperate Ezine Publisher's
Constituency, as they are bound to be different.) (I hate to even discuss
gTLD getting it's own Constituency when it should just be part of the ccTLD
Constituency or the Registrars Constituency. Better yet, we can just create
a Monopoly Constituency to make sure Net Sol is properly represented.)(Also
the ccTLD should be at least equal in number of votes as the PSO or ASO and
possibly equal to the combination of the two.)

therefor pays 8 /18  or 4/9 of the total budget.  Each constituency pays
1/18 of the budget.

(You just can't break it down that way under the current structure. You also
can't break down the cost while suggesting changes to the structure in the
same document. First we need to determine the proper structure. Then we can
define how best to pay for it. Adjustments can be made to make it work.)

at US$ 6 million , this would equate to $ 333,333 per seat.

At-Large could charge "dues" of, say $ 10 to $ 25 per year.
Other groups could get commercial donors or sponsorships, with the
sponsor(s) getting a logo and credit  on that group's web page.


(Those are all good possibilities, but suggest again the structure be
examined first.)

Representation with taxation, Everybody pays to play.

(Some without representation are ALREADY paying the cost of the
representation someone else is receiving.)

(And again the breakdown I suggested here is if we cannot achieve the
one-person-one-vote system. I consider Constituencies a "Plan B" system as
it is.)


peter de Blanc

(I can already hear the sighs and complaints coming in some replies,
especially from the current NC Members. So first let me explain my position
on that. The NC is asking for a review of how the DNSO and NC are performing
their duties. The Members of the NC should not be part of that review
process unless in a capacity to advise when asked to do so by this WG. You
can't write your own review. It is a Conflict of Interest and invalidates
anything we might accomplish as it leads anyone to suspect the motives of
you doing so. I personally don't care if that makes you not like me, but it
is the truth. If I am on any BoD and ask for an opinion of the
organization's membership as to the BoD's performance, I would not even
think of trying to influence their review as you are doing here. It is
disruptive and stifles objectivity. For the record I object to this and will
continue to do so. You have not gained public opinion where you are allowed
to guide that public opinion to your own end.)

(My simple advice to the current NC Members who want to write their own
review. "If you're ridin' ahead of the herd, take a look back every now and
then to make sure it's still there.")

>
> Kind regards,
> Elisabeth Porteneuve
>
> --
> Trying to keep the record:
> Summary of items by WG-REVIEW (see URL B. below):
> 1. [Charter] Review Process Background and Charter Discussion
> 2. [Outreach and DNSO] Report requested by NC
> 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC
> 4. [GA] Report requested by NC
> 5. [Working Group] Report requested by NC
> 6. [Secretariat] Report requested by NC
> 7. [Names Council] Report requested by NC
> 8. [WG A, B, C and DNSO] Report requested by NC
> 9. [DNSO Quality] Report requested by NC
> 10. [The Board and DNSO] Report requested by NC
> 11. [IDNH] individual domain holder constituency, Report requested by WG-
> Review Members
> 12. [STLD] specialized TLD constituency, Report requested by WG-Review
> Members
> 13. [DNSO/GA Chair election] Report requested by WG-Review Members
> --
>
> Important URLs relevant to the methodology of a Working Group:
> 1. 11 Aug 1999, David Johnson,
>    http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-d/Arc00/msg00158.html
> 2. 13 Sep 1999, David Johnson,
>    http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-d/Arc00/msg00414.html
> --
>
> URLs relevant to the ICANN structure and Bylaws
> 1. ICANN structure http://www.icann.org/general/icann-org-chart_frame.htm
> 2. ICANN Bylaws http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm
>
> --
> URLs relevant to the WG-REVIEW work plan:
> A. 4 August 2000, Names Council Review Task Force list and archives are
open
>    http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/maillist.html
>
> B. 4 December 2000, Theresa Swinehart, NC Review 2.0 Circulation for
Comment
>    http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/msg00071.html
>
> C. 19 December 2000, DNSO Secretariat, NC telecon 19 Dec 2000
>    http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20001219.NCtelecon-minutes.html
>       Decision D4:
>       - establish a Review Working Group, chaired by Y.J. Park
>       - make the "terms of reference" "responding to the RTF
questionnaire"
>       - make the lifetime of the WG January 15th
>       - ask the group to report by January 15th to the NC Review Task
Force.
>       - issue a press release immediately to encourage participation in
this WG.
>
>       The following members voted in favour: Chicoine, aus der Mühlen,
>       Roberts, Hotta, Harris, Cochetti, Sheppard, Swinehart (by proxy),
>       de Blanc (by proxy), Porteneuve, Kane, Stubbs (by proxy),
>       YJ Park (with the reserve that the given timeframe is too short
>       to accomplish this task properly).
>
>       Vandromme abstained.
>
>       Ph. Sheppard offered to draft the press release, to liase with
>       YJ Park and to ask Ken Stubbs as NC Chair (assuming availability)
>       to approve it on behalf of the NC.
>
> D. As an immediate action the WG Review list and archives are open
>    on 19 December 2000.
>    http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/maillist.html
>
> E. 21 December 2000, Philip Sheppard, Names Council Press Release
>    http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00060.html
>
> F. 29 December 2000, Theresa Swinehart, Re: Press release - timeline
>    http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/msg00077.html
>
> G. 06 January 2000, Theresa Swinehart, Reminder and schedule on DNSO
review
>    http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/msg00078.html
> --
> --
> 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
>

--
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