On 10 November 2013 10:27, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
It is long past time, indeed it is decades past time, that the contractual tree that underlies ICANN's regulatory structure ought to recognize and declare that the ultimate purpose of that structure is to benefit those who register and those who use domain names.
I think the term I'd use to describe my reaction to this is "violent agreement".
ICANN's focus is on the structure of registries and registrars. An inquiring outsider could understandably reach the conclusion that in ICANN's systems registrants and users are not of particular value or concern.
Actually, insiders can come to that conclusion too. The more one looks at ICANN from the inside -- its structural composition and corporate culture -- one reaches the conclusion that the robustness of the financial chain is all that matters. ICANN is dependent on the revenues from gTLDs and has thus been captured by their priorities. It benefits most from the maximim proliferation of domain names, whether or not that proliferation benefits either providers or users of Internet-based services. At the highest level, ICANN's choice to (massively!) expand the namespace, before cleaning up what already exists, messages its priorities far clearer than any press release. In this environment, end users are irrelevant to ICANN's because they are not in the financial food-chain. Right now this is set to perpetuate, despite Fadi's attempts to shift slightly by at least acknowledging that non-financially-interested parties matter. Look at the current trend of the NomCom to stress corporate management over Internet policy people for the ICANN Board. This emphasis ensures that a user-centric ICANN is a long way off, if it ever has a chance at all.
There is much talk about registrants and domain name users, but it is talk - it is vapor blowing in a light breeze. It is pleasant to see but lacking in substance.
Well, at least there is talk. Until recently there was barely even acknowledgement that end users existed, let alone mattered. In the law of contracts there is a principle of law known as Third Party
Beneficiary Rights. This is a means through which third parties, who are not themselves direct parties to a contractual relationship can obtain powers to enforce and compel the obligations of that contract upon the direct parties.
This is one channel, but since it depends on one country's law and not international treaty, you're effectively demanding that such rights need to be enforced through the courts and not ICANN's internal mechanisms. That -- as always seems the case within ICANN -- limits participants to those with big cash. It also doesn't address how to build in user-centric policy making from the start, thereby relegating ICANN to an endless stimulus-response cycle of tossing out global policy and hoping it survives American legal challenge. I like your objectives but think we need better tactics -- and especially ones not dependent on any one country's court system. - Evan