Bret Fausett wrote:
On the substance though, the proposal isn't as bad as I feared. As I read it, ALS structures are part of a group that gets 1/3 of the seats on the GNSO. May be, but IMO it's worse than that. They would have to invent a process for determining which ALSs get to play, and there's a sneaky use of the term "qualified ALSs". (Who determines what ALSs are "qualified"?) If it's by appointment the process is ripe for gaming; if it's by selection by the rest of the GNSO then only the docile ones need apply. And if it's elected by At-Large, then it's a parallel ALAC structure which invites some nasty divide-an-conquer tactics (not to mention needless more process work for the ALSs).
The result is a process which has superficial representation, but in reality is sufficiently splintered and neutered to have even less effectiveness -- while going through the same agonizing growing pains -- as ALAC. For this reason I would object to this even on an "it's better than nothing" rationale. Those who sees ALAC as an ICANN public relations stunt should see this GNSO move as the same thing but even worse.
I also strongly dislike the phrase "contractual interest group," which ignores the fact that registrants are required to sign standard form contracts with registrars, each of which contains provisioned mandated by ICANN and passed down to the registrants through the registrars. The reality is that a registrant's rights in a domain name are limited in important ways by the ICANN-mandated terms of their registration contracts. These contracts also impose ICANN-mandated fees that registrants in gTLDs must pay annually. A better name for the current group is "registration interests." This isn't just a matter of language. The "contracted parties" lingo is used by the registries and registrars to get positions of budget approval and financial leverage within the ICANN process, completely ignoring the fact that it is the users who ultimately pay ICANN's bills. The increasing ICANN budget and the price increases of gTLD registries take a larger and larger bite out of registrants pockets each year, and we should no longer allow ourselves to be marginalized by false labels.
Good point. As if we needed another reason to oppose the document. ;-) - Evan