Re: [ga] Provider/User Balance

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Richard, Danny and all,

  What Danny has/is  proposing is nothing new as to a viable solution.
However
there is no such body by which Danny's solution can be implemented that
is legitimate or has met the openness and transparency recognized
requirements
where as Stakeholders/users can vote on such a consideration.  Once
there
was, and it was known as the general assembly of the DNSO.  However
the ICANN staff and Bod decided long to abandon the as a entragal
part if ICANN's structure.  Many of us than warned of the consequences.
We are again seeing the results of those consequences.  Catch 22...

Richard Henderson wrote:

>    Dear Vint and members of the GA list,
>
> I feel I must support Danny Younger's very sharp analysis here,
> because it gets to the heart of one of ICANN's main weaknesses: its
> historic reluctance to "enforce" by means of its Registry and
> Registrar contracts.
>
> The case highlighted by Danny is symptomatic of previous occasions
> when Agreements have been flouted, and the interests of "suppliers"
> put before the interests of millions of other people for whom the DNS
> and Internet functions primarily exist.
>
> In short, these DNS functions do not exist "for the sake of
> registrars" and because registrars and many registries are simply
> profit-making companies set up to feed off the processes of "supply"
> their interests and decisions should always be subordinated to the
> wider interests and benefits of the actual users of the Internet as a
> whole.
>
> Because it is almost impossible to legislate these matters at a global
> level (different sovereign states, for example, may take different
> views on WHOIS and privacy issues), it becomes even more imperative
> that ICANN steps up to the mark in terms of the "enforcement" of its
> Agreements/Contracts with Registrars and Registries.
>
> Basically, it should become an underlying principle of the "right to
> operate through the ICANN-overseen functions" that from the outset,
> when a registrar enters into an Agreement to Operate with ICANN, they
> should accept that failure to adhere to agreements may result in
> suspension or termination of the right to operate. Such a devastating
> commercial consequence would result in much more (appropriate) control
> of the registrars and registries, and the subordination of their
> (purely commercial) interests to the wider interests of millions of
> other participants.
>
> This does not mean that we should belittle the experience, insights
> and benefits of the registrar constituency: however, it is not
> acceptable that a group that simply exist to make money from
> "supplying" something that is not theirs, should be able to
> effectively overrule or thwart policies which impact on the people for
> whom the process and functions are actually meant to exist.
>
> Vint, I engaged with you at some length over the registrar abuse (and
> some registry abuse) which occurred at the time of the .info Sunrise
> and then later during the launch of .biz. What became clear to me was
> that you (and ICANN as a whole) were either unwilling or unable to
> intervene. Registrar and Registry agreements were broken, to the
> disadvantage of ordinary consumers, but appeals to ICANN fell on
> seemingly deaf ears. ICANN would not intervene to require these
> constituents to adhere to their Agreements. Indeed, ICANN failed -
> over a period of more than two years - to even acknowledge my
> expressions of grave concern over the abuses which occurred.
>
> I am not some eccentric and obscure 'conspiracist' who was fantasising
> about these abuses. I am in Senior Educational management and have
> also worked in the UK Prison Services as a Prison Governor (Warden in
> USA?) with responsibilities for hundreds of prisoners. I exist in the
> real world and I'm pragmatic. Do you suppose that I would have allowed
> my prisoners to have a right of overruling the institution on issues
> of security or conditions or date of release. They were in a
> subordinate relationship to the needs of the broader community of
> law-abiding citizens.
>
> I therefore strongly support Danny Younger's point raised in his mail
> to you.
>
> Registrars or Registrars want the right and privilege to benefit from
> the DNS functions that sustain the Internet and other resources. Fair
> enough. However the Internet and DNS does not exist for their sake.
> They are a subordinate part of the process. This subordination should
> be enforced by means of Agreements / Contracts. In order to make these
> Contracts stick, there must be clear and punitive consequences if the
> terms of their "right to trade" are breached.
>
> In order to protect the interests of the broader worldwide community -
> for whom, actually, the Internet DOES exist - ICANN must be willing to
> "enforce" the terms of strong contracts with these "suppliers". This
> should extend, incicentally, to a mandatory Code of Conduct and an
> outright ban on warehousing domain names or the retention (at the
> expiry/deletes stage) for the purpose of selling at profit a resource
> which should not br theirs to re-sell.
>
> At present, far too much influence is wielded in ICANN processes by
> the Registry and Registrar constituencies. Far too little influence is
> granted to the actual users of the Internet. ICANN has grown up - is
> certainly perceived as having grown up - as a small group of industry
> insiders who appear to gain mutual benefit from policy-making which
> they themselves control. In my opinion, Registrars and Registries -
> because they stand to gain financially from ICANN policies - should be
> allowed observer status only and should have a presence only in an
> advisory capacity. Otherwise there will always exist grounds for
> making accusations of "Conflict of Interest". Verisign have argued
> this recently, indeed.
>
> I am not belittling the contributions of the DNS "Supply Industry". I
> am simply agreeing with Danny Younger that this industry should be
> subordinated, and that enforcement of Agreements / Contracts is a
> vital element in this process.
>
> It goes without saying, that I believe the At Large (or community of
> net users) should be afforded much more power and influence on the
> ICANN Board. People around the world at present are questioning
> ICANN's right to determine or oversee policy on DNS. A reversal of
> Stuart Lynn's mistaken expulsion of At Large Directors would enable
> ICANN to say: "Look! ICANN is representative of the whole world and
> the whole internet community!" ICANN needs to move away from its
> appearance as a small Californian quango, answerable to only ONE
> country, and curtailed by its Registrar and Registry friends. It needs
> to be seen for what it should truly be: a guardian and steward of a
> resource that belongs to the whole world.
>
> The other direction leads to Governmental control or UN control, and
> basic Internet freedoms and creative commercial development may be
> damaged that way, as I am sure you would agree.
>
> ICANN needs to put its house in order and enforce clear and
> well-written Contracts. The era of buddies all just working together
> has passed, I fear.
>
> With best wishes,
>
> Richard Henderson
> www.atlarge.org
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Danny Younger
>   To: vinton.g.cerf@xxxxxxx
>   Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 10:40 PM
>   Subject: [ga] Provider/User Balance
>
>
>   Dear Vint,
>
>   Recently both the Registry Constituency and the Registrar
> Constituency acted to vote down the recommendations of the WHOIS Task
> Force.
>
>   This was done in full knowledge that "If the Registrars and
> Registries voted against the report it would not be forwarded to the
> Board as a consensus policy, but as a majority proposal. The
> ramifications were that if it was not a consensus policy, the Board
> could not impose it on the registrars and registries and it would not
> become an automatic amendment to the contract."  (see
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow1-2tf/msg00250.html )
>
>   This vote bothered me for a number of reasons:  Yes, I understand
> that these companies are not charities -- they have argued that the
> recommendations will cost some of them some money, and I know that
> these companies will only act either because competition demands it,
> or customers demand it, or because regulation demands it.
>
>   The problem is that the market imperative -- "let the providers
> decide" -- is often not in line with the result that the rest of
> society wants.
>
>   With respect to these particular WHOIS recommendations, the driving
> force behind the effort to have them implemented was the fact that
> registrants don't read shrink wrap agreements and therefore don't know
> that their contact information is being made publicly available
> through WHOIS; accordingly, they should be explicitly made aware of
> this fact separate from the agreement that they're not going to read.
>
>   Now, in terms of internet governance issues, a governing body could
> resolve this problem by demanding a change through industry regulation
> (if there were a governing body that was empowered to globally
> regulate).  Since we don't have such a global regulator, however, we
> must rely on the services that only ICANN can provide through the
> power of its contracts and bylaws.
>
>   So, if over the long haul the public interest is to be served, it
> appears to me that ICANN must consider inaugurating certain contract
> and bylaw changes so as to deny the provider segment the unilateral
> ability to effectively block the unanimous consensus of the user
> population.
>
>   As ICANN begins the upcoming process of re-evaluating the RAA, I
> believe that it should also give thought to revising the voting schema
> currently in place within the GNSO Council that at present
> successfully manages to thwart the implementation of the public
> interest.  This may be accomplished by way of the Board's
> deliberations pursuant to the GNSO Council Review which envisioned the
> possibility of structural changes.
>
>   The current "balance" within the Council favors the providers at the
> expense of the users.  An adjustment is warranted.
>
>   Best regards,
>   Danny Younger
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827