Re: [ga] Public Comments Sought on GNSO Improvements
Danny Younger wrote: The Board Governance Committee's GNSO Review Working Group has released a "Draft Working Document on GNSO Improvements" that presents the Working Group's initial thinking on, and raises questions about, how to improve the GNSO I read it. It continues the ICANN tradition of creating its own taxonomy of interests and putting people into boxes inside boxes. Let's see ... it suggests several kinds of constituencies for individual people - people who act as non-commercial agents, people who act as academics, people who act as ... you get the point. And it blandly says "gee, ICANN has always allowed new constituencies" - the truth of that is belied by the treatment of ICANN when it refused to consider the IDNO, the constituency for individual domain name owners. And yet, after all of the report's micro-division of individuals, it does not make a similar dissection of commercial interests - there is not a constituency into which to put companies with green logos and companies incorporated in Alabama, etc. Why are commercial interests once again given a free ride while individuals are chopped up into pieces? Might I suggest that certain commercial interests like the stability they get from a policy of "divide and conquer". The report fails to recognize the logical conclusion of its strategy of micro-dissection: One constituency for each and every person. In which case why the constituency mechanism at all? Nor does the report consider sunsets on existing constituencies, particularly those established by fiat at ICANN's start. Overall it is a pretty weak report. It continues the ICANN tradition of evading meaningful participation by people and elevating the participation of commercial aggregates. Corporatism. --karl--
|