Re: [ga] LSE Report and 3 "superconstituencies", and broader participation

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

This also further erodes any representation of the dotcommoner. It is good for big business and large retailers but bad for consumers. When are the ivory tower types going to realize that individual common folk are the only stakeholders, the rest are profiteers.
   
  e

kidsearch <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
          For me that makes it even tougher for proper representation. Don't believe the BC represents small business owners at all and neither does the nonprofit constituency. Throwing ISPs in with the BC is redundant and no help to small business owners. The IP constituency is definitely redundant and unnecessary since they represent the same type of buisinesses as the BC. Multiple labels simply give larger businesses more votes and more power over small business owners. There are a lot more people who fit the small business owner category than fit the large corporation category. However representation throughout ICANN's system is weighed heavily toward larger businesses. This is not representative of the general Internet community which ICANN is charged with representing.
   
  There needs to be a major overhaul if ICANN is to ever represent the broader Internet community around the world. There should be MORE representation for individual users than for any of the current constituencies. More than 50% of the Board and constituencies should be there to represent individuals and small business owners since the make up the majority of the Internet community.
   
  Then we have to watch to make sure they don't redefine small business as any business with under 30 million dollars in sales. The SBA has been known for that. They have increased the size definitions so that larger corps could get in on the tax dollars that are meant to be used to protect and finance small businesses. The system gets manipulated often but at least it does help many small businesses. ICANN has no mechanism to make sure there are adequate safeguards for small businesses on the web. Many will want to argue they should do nothing of the sort, however they are mandated to foster competition on the web. To do so you need representation for small business owners. The government recognized this in the 1950s. The same applies here as well in my opinion.
   
  From the SBA website;
   
  What is a Small Business?
The Small Business Act states that a small business concern is "one that is independently owned and operated and which is not dominant in its field of operation."  The law also states that in determining what constitutes a small business, the definition will vary from industry to industry to reflect industry differences accurately.  SBA's Small Business Size Regulations implement the Small Business Act's mandate to SBA.  SBA has also established a table of size standards, matched to North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) industries. 
   
  When the U.S. Congress first established SBA, the fundamental question was just what numerical definition should SBA use to define small businesses, industry by industry, to determine what businesses were eligible for SBA's programs.  Over the years SBA has established and revised numerical definitions for all for-profit industries, and this numerical definition is called a "size standard."  It is almost always stated either as the number of employees or average annual receipts of a business concern. 
   
  In addition to establishing eligibility for SBA programs, all federal agencies must use SBA's size standards for its Federal Government contracts it identifies as a small business.  Agencies must also use SBA's size standards for their other programs and regulations, unless they are authorized by Federal statute to use something else.
   
  SBA's Office of Size Standards develops and recommends small business size standards to the Size Policy Board and to the Administrator of SBA.  These include recommendations on small business definitions that other Federal agencies propose.  Under the Small Business Act, Federal agencies must obtain the approval of the SBA Administrator before adopting a size standard different from SBA's size standard. 
   
   So, in conclusion, just having a BC does not cut it. Adding an IP constituency to the mix simply gives more votes to the BC in my opinion.
   
   
  

   
  ----- Original Message -----   From: "George Kirikos" <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
  To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 5:34 PM
  Subject: [ga] LSE Report and 3 "superconstituencies", and broader participation

  

> Hello,
> 
> One of the main recommendations of the LSE report is that the GNSO be
> reduced from the existing 6 constituencies to 3 "superconstituencies":
> 
> 1) Registration -- i.e. the registries and registrars; I'd expect lots
> of infighting and division in this constituency
> 2) Business -- i.e. the existing BC, IP and ISP consituencies
> 3) Civil Society -- non-commercial constituency, individual users,
> small domain registrants, ALAC, etc.
> 
> I'm undecided whether the above could work. At least from my own
> perspective (my company is a BC member), I know that I have great
> respect for many in the IP and ISP constituencies, and so to the extent
> that Business is better represented in ICANN decision-making, I can see
> it as a potential positive. Also, if more folks get involved through
> the "Civil Society" constituency, that would be very encouraging. 
> 
> Right now, we have people getting involved on an issue-by-issue basis,
> e.g. with the recent .biz/info/org debate, with WLS, WHOIS, or with
> other single issues,  but then nothing is done to encourage these folks
> to *stay* involved. e.g. all the submitted email comments that receive
> "confirmation" emails from ICANN should include details on getting more
> involved, i.e. links to the GNSO, ALAC, Non-Commercial, Business
> Constituency, IP constituency, etc. In other words, there's an
> oppportunity for real Outreach to occur that is being squandered.
> 
> This doesn't meaning "spamming" the people, however one could include a
> standard boilerplate message on the bottom of every announcement page
> at ICANN that asks for public comments on how to get more involved
> through the GNSO, and similar details (or just a link to an Outreach
> webpage) on email confirmation forms, and also perhaps links into ICANN
> Announcements  mailing list signup forms, etc. It would just be common
> sense to try to convert these people who have taken the initiative to
> comment on a single issue, and encourage them them into becoming
> long-term participants.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.4/449 - Release Date: 9/15/06
> 
> 

 				
---------------------------------
Want to be your own boss? Learn how on  Yahoo! Small Business.