Re: [ga] RE: GA irrelevant

[Andy Gardner <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On May 16, 2010, at 9:17 PM, Andrew McMeikan wrote:

> 
> 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?