RE: [council] new string/re diversity

[<tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx>]

Tom

>From the ISPCP perspective I don't think I have anything much to add
here, other than to endorse much of what has already been said. We
certainly need to ensure that all relevant stakeholders are involved in
ICANN and there are many ways of cutting the cloth and getting a
reasonable fit. With the current GNSO arrangement we have one that is
pretty much inclusive and we should focus on making it work better, not
start changing it without due cause. Unless there is a cast iron case
for doing so, to keep adding additional groups would jeopardise
progress.

The only other point I'd like to emphasis is one that Marilyn briefly
alluded to below. Over the next 5 years or so the Internet is likely to
radically change as it becomes the focus for technology evolution that
will radically change the way we provide a vast range of services that
in the past, were not Internet based. ICANNs role in that development is
essential, but if we're to try and evolve the ICANN model to include
every party impacted, it would become totally unmanageable. For me that'
one of the major arguments to ensure ICANN's mission is clearly defined
and doesn't stray into areas which don't fit with its key competences.

Regards

Tony
 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade
Sent: 22 June 2006 17:08
To: 'Thomas Keller'; 'Council GNSO'
Subject: [council] new string/re diversity

I know that sometimes it is tempting to think that "we" have a unique
view
of the world, and that the world resolves [no pun intended] around
ICANN.

In fact, the Internet is much more complicated and complex, as is the
WWW,
and the evolving world of the NGN and other forms of IP applications
that
have nothing to do with ICANN, other than that they are reliant upon the
unique indicators and the reliability of the small percentage of the
Internet's infrastructure that ICANN influences. For instance,
certainly,
the role of ICANN in its limited but critical role is a foundational
aspect
of the Internet. However, it is the Internet industry that builds and
operates the Internet itself -- and of course, DNS registries and
registrars
are part and a critical part of the make up of the larger world.

It concerned me when I attended the recent U.S. Congressional hearing on
the
dot com agreement that some were portraying ICANN as in charge of
security
of the Internet, or equating DNS with the entirety of the Internet. I
saw a
little too much "enthusiasm" on several parties parts to portray how
important "their role" was. I think we all need to maintain perspective
on
the need for all of us to understand that we co-exist in a larger
Internet
world and that ICANN has a limited, albeit critical set of roles and
activities. 

Of course, we need to always encourage more companies and entities who
have
relevant interest in what ICANN does to become engaged, while not
seeking to
expand ICANN's scope or mission. That is a challenge, isn't it? To date,
it
has been hard, given the lack of early agenda and programme information.
However, I'm pleased to see the very recent approach that the ICANN
staff
has used in their last edit of the programme for this meeting. While the
agenda and the programme are very disappointingly late -- [and that is a
topic for improvement if companies are to get information early enough
to
approve travel and participation] still the new approach with some bits
of
information about who a workshop is designed for, etc. can help us to
outreach to the parts of companies who are indeed interested and engaged
in
areas where ICANN is relevant to them.

Let me address one of the points below regarding who a web hoster is/may
be:
I might suggest that it is easy to get baffled by terminology. Or if you
are
more technical in nature or expertise, it may be easy, accidentally to
overlook the need to speak in laymanese. Just so we aren't arguing past
each
other, let me suggest a flexible "general" resource that I find works
well
in international settings as well -- wikipedia.  

Let me use it as a reference document for a minute. A quick glance
through
the range of kinds of "hosting" and the different kinds of providers,
and
the examples of different kinds of companies/businesses engaged in web
hosting that can be found in that easy to find resource may be
informative.

Web hosters come in many sizes. The BC does have some members who offer
web
hosting. I am aware that there are web hosters who are members of the
ISPCP.

What I see in the "hosting" industry/sector is quite diverse, and that
seems
to be what you are suggesting, Tom: no single model, no single kind of
company, large, gigantic, and micro-enterprises.  

I'd suggest that web hosters are welcome to join the BC, and if they
meet
the ISPCP criteria, undoubtedly they might pursue membership/activity
there;
I leave that in the able hands of Mr. Holmes to comment on as chair of
the
constituency. And, Tom, you are suggesting, aren't you, that also web
hosters who are registrars are already members of the Registrar
constituency? Or that you would welcome them?   

As to the quite different kinds of industries -- I'm sitting in SG3, and
have  been discussing this topic with some service providers from Asian
island countries -- and they are describing the diversity to me as well,
including some very large, but distributed providers, and then some very
small local/regional providers that are new entrants in some cases. 

Must be the global Internet and open standards and innovation at work.
:-) 

 -----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On
Behalf Of Thomas Keller
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 3:45 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Regarding Letter from American Intellectual
Property
Law Association

Tony

Am 21.06.2006 schrieb Anthony Harris:
> And thus am rather surprised at your conclusion that:
> "The definition also seems to meet the needs
> of web host and ISP operators,"
> 
> If it does, I have yet to meet one...

With 1&1 and Godaddy as very large international webhosts 
supporting formulation 1 I would think that this conclusion
can be drawn. Which brings me to another point. Apparantly
webhosting companies are not represented in the current
constituency setup and hence not much is known about their
interessts. Since hosting is one of the real crucial services
of the net we might be advised well to think about incoperating
them somehow into our structure.

Best,

tom