Comments on GNSO improvements
The beautifully PDF'd document appearing on the ALAC website is unfortunately more style than substance. <https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/8_april_2008:200804051...> I will of course transmit it to the Board if the Committee votes for it, but I think we'd be missing an opportunity to add value to the discussion -- specifically in the area of restructuring of the constituencies and working methods. Do we agree with the restructuring into "Suppliers" and "Registrants" of the DNS? Should Non-Registrant Users be explicitly included? The document seems to be criticizing, but what are we proposing instead?
1. The recommendation that the GNSO’s makeup should focus almost exclusively on contracted parties and registrants is wrong. Individual Internet users make up the vast majority of the users of the Domain Name system. What happens to the names and numbers systems is of great importance to the public. Therefore, the interests of the Internet using public must be a key element in an improved GNSO. The current proposals completely miss this.
I'd say "Internet Users, including those who are not registrants of domain names, depend on the domain name system to locate and stably identify Internet resources. Those users should be included in the "Non-Contracting Parties" group." We say there should be "no rush," but stalemate has already been dragging, for 7 years in the case of WHOIS debates. I'd sure rather see something tried than nothing. References to ALAC's working procedures are unhelpful, without evidence that those procedures are producing useful statements. The most useful documents we've produced lately have come from outside -- and we should be more open to that kind of involvement, not building up yet more working groups to make involvement difficult. By contrast, I think the Working Group methods the GNSO has been using do in fact allow all members of the ICANN community to participate, including those not members of constituencies. We should ask for assurances that all participants will continue to be welcome, and that all will be treated as equal participants in the groups' structure and decisionmaking. Thanks, talk to you soon :) --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/
Hi Wendy I agree with your position. Jacqueline Wendy Seltzer wrote:
The beautifully PDF'd document appearing on the ALAC website is unfortunately more style than substance. <https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/8_april_2008:200804051...>
I will of course transmit it to the Board if the Committee votes for it, but I think we'd be missing an opportunity to add value to the discussion -- specifically in the area of restructuring of the constituencies and working methods.
Do we agree with the restructuring into "Suppliers" and "Registrants" of the DNS? Should Non-Registrant Users be explicitly included? The document seems to be criticizing, but what are we proposing instead?
1. The recommendation that the GNSO’s makeup should focus almost exclusively on contracted parties and registrants is wrong. Individual Internet users make up the vast majority of the users of the Domain Name system. What happens to the names and numbers systems is of great importance to the public. Therefore, the interests of the Internet using public must be a key element in an improved GNSO. The current proposals completely miss this.
I'd say "Internet Users, including those who are not registrants of domain names, depend on the domain name system to locate and stably identify Internet resources. Those users should be included in the "Non-Contracting Parties" group."
We say there should be "no rush," but stalemate has already been dragging, for 7 years in the case of WHOIS debates. I'd sure rather see something tried than nothing.
References to ALAC's working procedures are unhelpful, without evidence that those procedures are producing useful statements. The most useful documents we've produced lately have come from outside -- and we should be more open to that kind of involvement, not building up yet more working groups to make involvement difficult.
By contrast, I think the Working Group methods the GNSO has been using do in fact allow all members of the ICANN community to participate, including those not members of constituencies. We should ask for assurances that all participants will continue to be welcome, and that all will be treated as equal participants in the groups' structure and decisionmaking.
Thanks, talk to you soon :) --Wendy
Dear Wendy; Thank you for your comments, are very constructives, and obviously you have more experience than I, and after hear you, I'm sure that is neccessary to make another twist to this issue. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.sitioderecho.com.ar www.densi.com.ar > Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 04:09:18 -0400> From: wendy@seltzer.com> To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [At-Large] Comments on GNSO improvements> > The beautifully PDF'd document appearing on the ALAC website is> unfortunately more style than substance.> <https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/8_april_2008:20080405135601-0-19125/files/AL.ALAC-GNIM.WG-01-01-Rev5%20GNSO%20Improvements%20Statement%20-%20EN.pdf>> > > I will of course transmit it to the Board if the Committee votes for it,> but I think we'd be missing an opportunity to add value to the> discussion -- specifically in the area of restructuring of the> constituencies and working methods.> > Do we agree with the restructuring into "Suppliers" and "Registrants" of> the DNS? Should Non-Registrant Users be explicitly included? The> document seems to be criticizing, but what are we proposing instead?> > > 1. The recommendation that the GNSO’s makeup should focus almost exclusively> > on contracted parties and registrants is wrong. Individual Internet users make up> > the vast majority of the users of the Domain Name system. What happens to the> > names and numbers systems is of great importance to the public. Therefore, the> > interests of the Internet using public must be a key element in an improved GNSO.> > The current proposals completely miss this.> > I'd say "Internet Users, including those who are not registrants of> domain names, depend on the domain name system to locate and stably> identify Internet resources. Those users should be included in the> "Non-Contracting Parties" group."> > We say there should be "no rush," but stalemate has already been> dragging, for 7 years in the case of WHOIS debates. I'd sure rather see> something tried than nothing.> > References to ALAC's working procedures are unhelpful, without evidence> that those procedures are producing useful statements. The most useful> documents we've produced lately have come from outside -- and we should> be more open to that kind of involvement, not building up yet more> working groups to make involvement difficult.> > By contrast, I think the Working Group methods the GNSO has been using> do in fact allow all members of the ICANN community to participate,> including those not members of constituencies. We should ask for> assurances that all participants will continue to be welcome, and that> all will be treated as equal participants in the groups' structure and> decisionmaking.> > Thanks, talk to you soon :)> --Wendy> > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org> Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html> http://www.chillingeffects.org/> https://www.torproject.org/> > _______________________________________________> ALAC mailing list> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _________________________________________________________________ Ingresá ya a MSN en Concierto y disfrutá los recitales en vivo de tus artistas favoritos. http://msninconcert.msn.com/music/archive/es-la/archive.aspx
Wendy:
I'd say "Internet Users, including those who are not registrants of domain names, depend on the domain name system to locate and stably identify Internet resources. Those users should be included in the "Non-Contracting Parties" group."
This is something that the GNSO Review WG has discussed. Personally, I don't see anything against this, in principle, but I would be carful in how we present it for implementation. We have the status quo, we have one step forward (the inclusion of individual registrants in the non-contractual stakeholder group), and two steps forward (the inclusion of all individuals in a stakeholder group to be defined). If to go two steps forward meand that for the time being, until we find the perfect solution, we stay with the status quo, I don't think we are providing a good service to the internet community. Cheers, Roberto
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Wendy:
I'd say "Internet Users, including those who are not registrants of domain names, depend on the domain name system to locate and stably identify Internet resources. Those users should be included in the "Non-Contracting Parties" group."
This is something that the GNSO Review WG has discussed. Personally, I don't see anything against this, in principle, but I would be carful in how we present it for implementation. We have the status quo, we have one step forward (the inclusion of individual registrants in the non-contractual stakeholder group), and two steps forward (the inclusion of all individuals in a stakeholder group to be defined). If to go two steps forward meand that for the time being, until we find the perfect solution, we stay with the status quo, I don't think we are providing a good service to the internet community.
Thanks. I never meant to suggest a preference for the status quo over the inclusion of all relevant Internet users. I think at-large should ask for the representation it would like to see and deems reasonable from this process (not necessarily their pie-in-the-sky dreams, but not the make-do minimum either). So I think including all Internet users is better than including only some, and including registrants is better than including none. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/
As I have said before, the current BGC proposal calls to a non-commercial REGISTRANT stakeholder group. If one just replaced the word REGISTRANT with USER or REGISTRANT/USER, there is an opportunity for one or more groups representing users to coalesce and join this stakeholder group. There is no need at this stage to address how the one of more user groups are formed or who they represent. Just remove the requirement that currently requires members to solely represent registrants. I am not arguing for or against other plans - I am just pointing out that with one minor wording change, the current BGC proposal would allow the participation of users in the GNSO. Alan At 09/04/2008 08:35 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Wendy:
I'd say "Internet Users, including those who are not registrants of domain names, depend on the domain name system to locate and stably identify Internet resources. Those users should be included in the "Non-Contracting Parties" group."
This is something that the GNSO Review WG has discussed. Personally, I don't see anything against this, in principle, but I would be carful in how we present it for implementation. We have the status quo, we have one step forward (the inclusion of individual registrants in the non-contractual stakeholder group), and two steps forward (the inclusion of all individuals in a stakeholder group to be defined). If to go two steps forward meand that for the time being, until we find the perfect solution, we stay with the status quo, I don't think we are providing a good service to the internet community.
Cheers, Roberto
Thanks Alan That sounds like the best solution. Jacqueline Alan Greenberg wrote:
As I have said before, the current BGC proposal calls to a non-commercial REGISTRANT stakeholder group. If one just replaced the word REGISTRANT with USER or REGISTRANT/USER, there is an opportunity for one or more groups representing users to coalesce and join this stakeholder group. There is no need at this stage to address how the one of more user groups are formed or who they represent. Just remove the requirement that currently requires members to solely represent registrants.
I am not arguing for or against other plans - I am just pointing out that with one minor wording change, the current BGC proposal would allow the participation of users in the GNSO.
Alan
At 09/04/2008 08:35 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Wendy:
I'd say "Internet Users, including those who are not registrants of domain names, depend on the domain name system to locate and stably identify Internet resources. Those users should be included in the "Non-Contracting Parties" group."
This is something that the GNSO Review WG has discussed. Personally, I don't see anything against this, in principle, but I would be carful in how we present it for implementation. We have the status quo, we have one step forward (the inclusion of individual registrants in the non-contractual stakeholder group), and two steps forward (the inclusion of all individuals in a stakeholder group to be defined). If to go two steps forward meand that for the time being, until we find the perfect solution, we stay with the status quo, I don't think we are providing a good service to the internet community.
Cheers, Roberto
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Alan -- Sounds like a realistic approach. I'd argue for just "user," as "registrant" is just another jargon term that confuses people. Beau Brendler -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 10:56 AM To: Roberto Gaetano; 'Wendy Seltzer'; 'At-Large writ small' Subject: Re: [At-Large] Comments on GNSO improvements As I have said before, the current BGC proposal calls to a non-commercial REGISTRANT stakeholder group. If one just replaced the word REGISTRANT with USER or REGISTRANT/USER, there is an opportunity for one or more groups representing users to coalesce and join this stakeholder group. There is no need at this stage to address how the one of more user groups are formed or who they represent. Just remove the requirement that currently requires members to solely represent registrants. I am not arguing for or against other plans - I am just pointing out that with one minor wording change, the current BGC proposal would allow the participation of users in the GNSO. Alan At 09/04/2008 08:35 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Wendy:
I'd say "Internet Users, including those who are not registrants of domain names, depend on the domain name system to locate and stably identify Internet resources. Those users should be included in the "Non-Contracting Parties" group."
This is something that the GNSO Review WG has discussed. Personally, I don't see anything against this, in principle, but I would be carful in how we present it for implementation. We have the status quo, we have one step forward (the inclusion of individual registrants in the non-contractual stakeholder group), and two steps forward (the inclusion of all individuals in a stakeholder group to be defined). If to go two steps forward meand that for the time being, until we find the perfect solution, we stay with the status quo, I don't think we are providing a good service to the internet community.
Cheers, Roberto
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org *** Scanned
Brendler, Beau wrote:
Sounds like a realistic approach. I'd argue for just "user," as "registrant" is just another jargon term that confuses people.
I agree. While "registrant" is well understood in these circles, the need in GNSO is for users -- those who neither buy nor sell domains but have a stake in Internet usability -- to be represented. - Evan
Or have a user constituency AND a registrants constituency where you cannot be a member of both. Chris McElroy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> To: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@icann.org>; "'Wendy Seltzer'" <wendy@seltzer.com>; "'At-Large writ small'" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 10:56 AM Subject: Re: [At-Large] Comments on GNSO improvements
As I have said before, the current BGC proposal calls to a non-commercial REGISTRANT stakeholder group. If one just replaced the word REGISTRANT with USER or REGISTRANT/USER, there is an opportunity for one or more groups representing users to coalesce and join this stakeholder group. There is no need at this stage to address how the one of more user groups are formed or who they represent. Just remove the requirement that currently requires members to solely represent registrants.
I am not arguing for or against other plans - I am just pointing out that with one minor wording change, the current BGC proposal would allow the participation of users in the GNSO.
Alan
At 09/04/2008 08:35 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Wendy:
I'd say "Internet Users, including those who are not registrants of domain names, depend on the domain name system to locate and stably identify Internet resources. Those users should be included in the "Non-Contracting Parties" group."
This is something that the GNSO Review WG has discussed. Personally, I don't see anything against this, in principle, but I would be carful in how we present it for implementation. We have the status quo, we have one step forward (the inclusion of individual registrants in the non-contractual stakeholder group), and two steps forward (the inclusion of all individuals in a stakeholder group to be defined). If to go two steps forward meand that for the time being, until we find the perfect solution, we stay with the status quo, I don't think we are providing a good service to the internet community.
Cheers, Roberto
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Alan:
I am not arguing for or against other plans - I am just pointing out that with one minor wording change, the current BGC proposal would allow the participation of users in the GNSO.
I am 100% with you. And I also reply to Wendy:
Thanks. I never meant to suggest a preference for the status quo over the inclusion of all relevant Internet users. I think at-large should ask for the representation it would like to see and deems reasonable from this process (not necessarily their pie-in-the-sky dreams, but not the make-do minimum either).
So I think including all Internet users is better than including only some, and including registrants is better than including none.
I did not mean to imply that ALAC should not ask for the maximum, I only tried to explain my position, which is that, while the inclusion of individual registrants is a must, and therefore not negotiable, about extending the representation to all users I would personally take, in the Board, a more flexible approach, and therefore would consider this particular point as negotiable. Cheers, Roberto
Roberto, you wrote: "...about extending the representation to all users I would personally take, in the Board, a more flexible approach, and therefore would consider this particular point as negotiable." Please know that neither I nor the organization I represent considers this particular point to be flexible or negotiable. I do not presume to speak for other consumer organizations but my guess is that most would not consider it negotiable either. To the degree you are supposed to represent the interests of ALAC, in my opinion, you do not represent it here. Beau Brendler -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 6:23 PM To: 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Wendy Seltzer'; 'At-Large writ small' Subject: Re: [At-Large] Comments on GNSO improvements Alan:
I am not arguing for or against other plans - I am just pointing out that with one minor wording change, the current BGC proposal would allow the participation of users in the GNSO.
I am 100% with you. And I also reply to Wendy:
Thanks. I never meant to suggest a preference for the status quo over the inclusion of all relevant Internet users. I think at-large should
ask for the representation it would like to see and deems reasonable from this process (not necessarily their pie-in-the-sky dreams, but not the make-do minimum either).
So I think including all Internet users is better than including only some, and including registrants is better than including none.
I did not mean to imply that ALAC should not ask for the maximum, I only tried to explain my position, which is that, while the inclusion of individual registrants is a must, and therefore not negotiable, about extending the representation to all users I would personally take, in the Board, a more flexible approach, and therefore would consider this particular point as negotiable. Cheers, Roberto _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org *** Scanned
Beau,
Please know that neither I nor the organization I represent considers this particular point to be flexible or negotiable. I do not presume to speak for other consumer organizations but my guess is that most would not consider it negotiable either. To the degree you are supposed to represent the interests of ALAC, in my opinion, you do not represent it here.
I thought I made it clear that I was speaking for myself, not pretending to represent anybody else. And actually I would like to point out that, although I have worked for years in the ALAC, I am no longer the ALAC Liaison: this role has been taken over first by Vittorio, and now by Wendy. To be honest, I believe that in a large majority of the cases my positions are aligned with the ones of ALAC, and I am glad if I can help on some issues during the Board discussions, like pushing for an ALAC Summit, but I would not respect the mandate I have as NomCom appointee, which is to be independent from the different constituencies, if I had the obligation to represent 100% of the position of a specific group. Best regards, Roberto
Roberto -- Thanks, I am aware of who the current and past liaisons and officers are. Thank you also for reminding us that you speak for yourself. Regards, Beau Brendler -----Original Message----- From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto@icann.org] Sent: Thu 4/10/2008 6:03 PM To: Brendler, Beau; 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Wendy Seltzer'; 'At-Large writ small' Subject: RE: [At-Large] Comments on GNSO improvements Beau,
Please know that neither I nor the organization I represent considers this particular point to be flexible or negotiable. I do not presume to speak for other consumer organizations but my guess is that most would not consider it negotiable either. To the degree you are supposed to represent the interests of ALAC, in my opinion, you do not represent it here.
I thought I made it clear that I was speaking for myself, not pretending to represent anybody else. And actually I would like to point out that, although I have worked for years in the ALAC, I am no longer the ALAC Liaison: this role has been taken over first by Vittorio, and now by Wendy. To be honest, I believe that in a large majority of the cases my positions are aligned with the ones of ALAC, and I am glad if I can help on some issues during the Board discussions, like pushing for an ALAC Summit, but I would not respect the mandate I have as NomCom appointee, which is to be independent from the different constituencies, if I had the obligation to represent 100% of the position of a specific group. Best regards, Roberto
participants (8)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Blogs.pn -
Brendler, Beau -
carlos aguirre -
Evan Leibovitch -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
Roberto Gaetano -
Wendy Seltzer