Re: [ga] RE: GA irrelevant

[Andrew McMeikan <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Karl Auerbach wrote:
> Getting down to business..
> 
> I don't see any reason why one would not consider those who acquire
> domain names any less a logical constituency than those who sell domain
> names (indeed, ICANN has two flavors of constituency for those who sell
> names - registries and registrars).  And indeed it would seem that those
> who acquire domain names are arguably more entitled to constituency
> status than are those who are indirectly affected by domain names, such
> as intellectual property holders or ISPs or businesses that may or may
> not even have domain names.

I think perhaps that they are seen as the entire stakeholder group,
obviously a much too powerful voice for ICANN to ignore, so they
split it into smaller stakeholder groups.  None of which entirely
suit and IDNO type constituany (although the NCSG is getting close
with their proposed changes).


> There *have* been very concrete proposals for domain name holders to
> obtain formalized status within ICANN's structures.  The old IDNO
> proposal was fairly concrete and fully encompassed every natural person
> who had control of a domain name.  (Even corporate ownership was
> recognized through the recognition of named people with a corporate
> structure who had authority within that corporation of a degree that one
> could say "that person is the owner".)

The IDNO was active, vigerous and IMO viable.  It was overtly
unrecognized and seemed to get ICANN hostility, the responses of
ICANN to the group killed much enthusiasm.  Now this is just from
memory but it seemed to be "run along to a real stakeholder group".

> 
> The problem is that ICANN generally treats such proposals as unimportant
> or flippant and thus drains their ability to obtain backing and momentum.
> 
agreed.

> The board of directors of ICANN need not wait for a concrete proposal;
> rather it could write a simple resolution that recognizes that domain
> name registrants appear under-represent within ICANN, expresses a
> corporate desire to remedy that under-representation, and says that it
> desires concrete proposals, each accompanied by a roster of supporters,
> to be submitted for board consideration by such-and-such a date.
> 
>         --karl--
> 

They need not wait, but they seem unmotivated to serve any public
interest that does not have buckets of money.  After all they are
already collecting $$$ without having to pay attention, what can we
wave in front of them to get noticed?

I suspect that ICANN will be very happy with an IDNO type
constituency that is a very small voice within the NCSG.  It means
they can say "look individuals are represented in the system", yet
because many individual domain owners also have some comercial
interest they will be limited in their scope.

        cya,    Andrew...

PS: whats the big problem with voting?  why not just have a list vote?