Does the subcommittee have recommendations on GNSO review to share with the Committee? --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/
Not until after our next meeting to discuss the current drafting of the work we have done... 1st draft was completed on 17th and several edits have been discussed since but we will finalised in the teleconference, which is to be held March 21 1300 UTC... And I note that that other constituencies have requested an extension of time for Comment / Response until April 25th CLO Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Does the subcommittee have recommendations on GNSO review to share with the Committee?
--Wendy
Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
Not until after our next meeting to discuss the current drafting of the work we have done... 1st draft was completed on 17th and several edits have been discussed since but we will finalised in the teleconference, which is to be held March 21 1300 UTC...
And I note that that other constituencies have requested an extension of time for Comment / Response until April 25th
I would tend to oppose such an extension, as I think the proposed GNSO improvements will benefit at-large and want to see them implemented rapidly. --Wendy
CLO
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Does the subcommittee have recommendations on GNSO review to share with the Committee?
--Wendy
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: +1.914.374.0613 // office: 617.373.7331 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/
At 20/03/2008 07:09 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
Not until after our next meeting to discuss the current drafting of the work we have done... 1st draft was completed on 17th and several edits have been discussed since but we will finalised in the teleconference, which is to be held March 21 1300 UTC...
And I note that that other constituencies have requested an extension of time for Comment / Response until April 25th
I would tend to oppose such an extension, as I think the proposed GNSO improvements will benefit at-large and want to see them implemented rapidly.
--Wendy
Wendy, could you share your logic with us? Although I support some of the changes recommended in the report (and am leery of some as well), I do not see how At-Large really benefits other than in a utopian vision of "if the GNSO and therefore the overall Internet functions better, all users will benefit". It is true that there has been a lot of talk about At-Large or individual users being part of the Non-commercial Stakeholders Group. But that is all it is - talk. The BGC report makes it very clear that the 4th Stakeholder Group is for non-commercial REGISTRANTS. Admittedly, individual user registrants are part of the At-Large community, and indeed an important part. But At-Large also includes the uncountable number of users who are not registrants. And in the proposed model, they are excluded from participating in the work of the GNSO. Even at the working group level, the words in the report can be interpreted as excluding non-registrants in that the report talks about working groups being composed of a wide range of "stakeholders", a terms that is otherwise used in the report to categorize registrants. Alan
Alan and all, Very good analysis Alan. You seem to have expressed essentially most of where our members are regarding this review. Frankly and very briefly put, it is far to exclusive to independent registrants as well as users or users groups already self formed. Ergo yet again this review seems to have either missed years of stated legitimate concerns, or is a thinly vailed attempt to exclude the vast majority of stakeholders. Either way, this review isn't even close to the principals or sprit of the MOU. As such, I know it is our members belief that DOC/NTIA should reject it on the grounds you stated so well. Alan Greenberg wrote:
At 20/03/2008 07:09 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
Not until after our next meeting to discuss the current drafting of the work we have done... 1st draft was completed on 17th and several edits have been discussed since but we will finalised in the teleconference, which is to be held March 21 1300 UTC...
And I note that that other constituencies have requested an extension of time for Comment / Response until April 25th
I would tend to oppose such an extension, as I think the proposed GNSO improvements will benefit at-large and want to see them implemented rapidly.
--Wendy
Wendy, could you share your logic with us? Although I support some of the changes recommended in the report (and am leery of some as well), I do not see how At-Large really benefits other than in a utopian vision of "if the GNSO and therefore the overall Internet functions better, all users will benefit".
It is true that there has been a lot of talk about At-Large or individual users being part of the Non-commercial Stakeholders Group. But that is all it is - talk. The BGC report makes it very clear that the 4th Stakeholder Group is for non-commercial REGISTRANTS. Admittedly, individual user registrants are part of the At-Large community, and indeed an important part. But At-Large also includes the uncountable number of users who are not registrants. And in the proposed model, they are excluded from participating in the work of the GNSO.
Even at the working group level, the words in the report can be interpreted as excluding non-registrants in that the report talks about working groups being composed of a wide range of "stakeholders", a terms that is otherwise used in the report to categorize registrants.
Alan
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
True that the GNSO Stakeholder Group is defined for "registrants", not "users", but this opens the door to the possibility of having an individual registrant constituency, if some of the folks that are now in the at-large are interested in taking up this task. I am thinking in particular to people who are not part of an ALS, and/or have no intention to join one, but there's nothing that prevents anybody to participate both in ALAC and in the Registrants Constituency. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, 20 March 2008 14:42 To: At-Large Subject: Re: [At-Large] PAST DEADLINE: GNSO Review
At 20/03/2008 07:09 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
Not until after our next meeting to discuss the current drafting of the work we have done... 1st draft was completed on 17th and several edits have been discussed since but we will finalised in the teleconference, which is to be held March 21 1300 UTC...
And I note that that other constituencies have requested an extension of time for Comment / Response until April 25th
I would tend to oppose such an extension, as I think the proposed GNSO improvements will benefit at-large and want to see them implemented rapidly.
--Wendy
Wendy, could you share your logic with us? Although I support some of the changes recommended in the report (and am leery of some as well), I do not see how At-Large really benefits other than in a utopian vision of "if the GNSO and therefore the overall Internet functions better, all users will benefit".
It is true that there has been a lot of talk about At-Large or individual users being part of the Non-commercial Stakeholders Group. But that is all it is - talk. The BGC report makes it very clear that the 4th Stakeholder Group is for non-commercial REGISTRANTS. Admittedly, individual user registrants are part of the At-Large community, and indeed an important part. But At-Large also includes the uncountable number of users who are not registrants. And in the proposed model, they are excluded from participating in the work of the GNSO.
Even at the working group level, the words in the report can be interpreted as excluding non-registrants in that the report talks about working groups being composed of a wide range of "stakeholders", a terms that is otherwise used in the report to categorize registrants.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org
Dear Roberto, I will run a querry among the france@large members on this matter and will report it. I would therefore suggest that we clarify the questions to ask so other ALS could run the same querry and we could validly compare. This could be articulated as follows: 1. do you consider that the creation of a GNSO Registrant Constituency is of importance? 2. if it was created should it be part of the ALAC, related to the ALAC, or independent from the ALAC? why? 3. do you see the Internet as: - a global whole (IETF) - where everyone shares the same level of interest for it to work better - (Y/N - comments)? - user centric (ISOC) - where everyone is entitled to an equal domain name service - (Y/N - comments)? - human centric (WSIS) - where people freely use specific Internet resources (such as access, domain names, addresses) and should be specifically invovled (Y/N - comments) 4. do you consider that ALAC is: - to represent ICANN locally? - to represent the Internet Community within ICANN? as a whole or on specific grounds? - both? 5. Do you see possible conflicts between you as an Internet user and as an Internet Registrant? 6. Would you feel more involved as a user or as a registrant? 7. Would a "registrant" and a "user" oriented mailing list be a good idea for france@large? 8. Which topic would you be interested in as a registrant (Y/N) - Multilingual Domain Names and support of French domain names? - ML_ccTLD - multilingual Mail Addresses - Whois Privacy to respect the French law - for profit nature of the registrars resulting from the ICANN due. - respect of the French law as far as national territory related Registries are concerned. - local and private TLDs - Domain Name ownership or holdership? - interest of registrars compared with domain related services? - UDRP evolution - anti-confusion rules (TM and famous name protection) - multilevel naming - semantic addressing convergence - QuiEst services (standardised information page on Domain Name owner/holder) - should consumer organisation protect domain name registrants? - anti-UDRP and foreign incident insurrance (protection against financial consequences, cost of a procedure) - Keywords and Aliases - DNS related new services - hierarchical or heterarchical name space - protected name formats - DNSSEC - DNS 2.0 : how do you see it. - multiple root evolution - ICANN ICP-3 demanded DNS evolution testing - national or european ICANN after the end of the ICANN/USG JPA - other topics 9. Additional comments All the best. jfc At 10:06 22/03/2008, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
True that the GNSO Stakeholder Group is defined for "registrants", not "users", but this opens the door to the possibility of having an individual registrant constituency, if some of the folks that are now in the at-large are interested in taking up this task. I am thinking in particular to people who are not part of an ALS, and/or have no intention to join one, but there's nothing that prevents anybody to participate both in ALAC and in the Registrants Constituency.
Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, 20 March 2008 14:42 To: At-Large Subject: Re: [At-Large] PAST DEADLINE: GNSO Review
At 20/03/2008 07:09 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
Not until after our next meeting to discuss the current drafting of the work we have done... 1st draft was completed on 17th and several edits have been discussed since but we will finalised in the teleconference, which is to be held March 21 1300 UTC...
And I note that that other constituencies have requested an extension of time for Comment / Response until April 25th
I would tend to oppose such an extension, as I think the proposed GNSO improvements will benefit at-large and want to see them implemented rapidly.
--Wendy
Wendy, could you share your logic with us? Although I support some of the changes recommended in the report (and am leery of some as well), I do not see how At-Large really benefits other than in a utopian vision of "if the GNSO and therefore the overall Internet functions better, all users will benefit".
It is true that there has been a lot of talk about At-Large or individual users being part of the Non-commercial Stakeholders Group. But that is all it is - talk. The BGC report makes it very clear that the 4th Stakeholder Group is for non-commercial REGISTRANTS. Admittedly, individual user registrants are part of the At-Large community, and indeed an important part. But At-Large also includes the uncountable number of users who are not registrants. And in the proposed model, they are excluded from participating in the work of the GNSO.
Even at the working group level, the words in the report can be interpreted as excluding non-registrants in that the report talks about working groups being composed of a wide range of "stakeholders", a terms that is otherwise used in the report to categorize registrants.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.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://www.alac.icann.org
No question that an opportunity for individual registrant to participate is a good thing (although one wonders how they could organize mobilize support, or afford ICANN participation, but that is not the question at hand). The concern is that the proposal does not allow for representatives of the other trillion people who are not registrants to participate. I understand that there *may* be an opportunity to participate in working groups ("may" because it will depend on how the term stakeholders is interpreted). But if there is any value in participating in Council activities (and all of the other constituencies certainly seem to think that there is), then non-registrant users should as well. Alan At 22/03/2008 05:06 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
True that the GNSO Stakeholder Group is defined for "registrants", not "users", but this opens the door to the possibility of having an individual registrant constituency, if some of the folks that are now in the at-large are interested in taking up this task. I am thinking in particular to people who are not part of an ALS, and/or have no intention to join one, but there's nothing that prevents anybody to participate both in ALAC and in the Registrants Constituency.
Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, 20 March 2008 14:42 To: At-Large Subject: Re: [At-Large] PAST DEADLINE: GNSO Review
At 20/03/2008 07:09 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
Not until after our next meeting to discuss the current drafting of the work we have done... 1st draft was completed on 17th and several edits have been discussed since but we will finalised in the teleconference, which is to be held March 21 1300 UTC...
And I note that that other constituencies have requested an extension of time for Comment / Response until April 25th
I would tend to oppose such an extension, as I think the proposed GNSO improvements will benefit at-large and want to see them implemented rapidly.
--Wendy
Wendy, could you share your logic with us? Although I support some of the changes recommended in the report (and am leery of some as well), I do not see how At-Large really benefits other than in a utopian vision of "if the GNSO and therefore the overall Internet functions better, all users will benefit".
It is true that there has been a lot of talk about At-Large or individual users being part of the Non-commercial Stakeholders Group. But that is all it is - talk. The BGC report makes it very clear that the 4th Stakeholder Group is for non-commercial REGISTRANTS. Admittedly, individual user registrants are part of the At-Large community, and indeed an important part. But At-Large also includes the uncountable number of users who are not registrants. And in the proposed model, they are excluded from participating in the work of the GNSO.
Even at the working group level, the words in the report can be interpreted as excluding non-registrants in that the report talks about working groups being composed of a wide range of "stakeholders", a terms that is otherwise used in the report to categorize registrants.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org
Alan,
No question that an opportunity for individual registrant to participate is a good thing (although one wonders how they could organize mobilize support, or afford ICANN participation, but that is not the question at hand).
The concern is that the proposal does not allow for representatives of the other trillion people who are not registrants to participate. I understand that there *may* be an opportunity to participate in working groups ("may" because it will depend on how the term stakeholders is interpreted). But if there is any value in participating in Council activities (and all of the other constituencies certainly seem to think that there is), then non-registrant users should as well.
Although I do agree in principle with you, I also believe that the "better" is the enemy of the "good". ICANN is 10 years old. Since the beginning there has been an attempt (failed so far) for individual registrants to build a constituency. We now have the choice: do we use this (tiny) window, or do we drop the opportunity waiting another 10 years for the situation to be ready for extending participation also to the non-registrant individuals? Nothing prevents in the future to create a non-registrant constituency, considering that one of the principles we have adopted in the GNSO Review was the flexibility, but to delay the first step in order to make a bigger step later might be a mistake, and might be missing an opportunity. Just my 2c. Cheers, Roberto
At 22/03/2008 12:52 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Alan,
No question that an opportunity for individual registrant to participate is a good thing (although one wonders how they could organize mobilize support, or afford ICANN participation, but that is not the question at hand).
The concern is that the proposal does not allow for representatives of the other trillion people who are not registrants to participate. I understand that there *may* be an opportunity to participate in working groups ("may" because it will depend on how the term stakeholders is interpreted). But if there is any value in participating in Council activities (and all of the other constituencies certainly seem to think that there is), then non-registrant users should as well.
Although I do agree in principle with you, I also believe that the "better" is the enemy of the "good". ICANN is 10 years old. Since the beginning there has been an attempt (failed so far) for individual registrants to build a constituency. We now have the choice: do we use this (tiny) window, or do we drop the opportunity waiting another 10 years for the situation to be ready for extending participation also to the non-registrant individuals? Nothing prevents in the future to create a non-registrant constituency, considering that one of the principles we have adopted in the GNSO Review was the flexibility, but to delay the first step in order to make a bigger step later might be a mistake, and might be missing an opportunity.
Just my 2c.
Cheers, Roberto
Roberto, I have highlighted one of your sentences that makes my point exactly. I want the ability to at some later time, when we perhaps have gotten our act better together, to form a non-registrant constituency. To ALLOW this to happen, you need to define (in the proposed plan) the Non-commercial Registrant Stakeholders Group as simple the Non-commercial Stakeholders Group. By removing the "Registrant" from its definition, you allow, at some future time, for a user-type constituency to form as one of the sub-groups of this stakeholder group. By defining it as a "Registrant" stakeholders group, you are implicitly saying that its component constituencies are all registrant groups of some form. By removing it, you allow potentially all sorts of interested parties (not only users) to participate. In my mind, this increases flexibility (which you confirm was a target outcome) and I don't see what is lost. No thing I said was meant to imply a delay. Alan
Alan, Would it be a good idea if ALAC presented a comment saying exactly what you outline below, i.e. that the non-commercial non-contractual stakeholder group should be open to users, not only to registrants? Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Saturday, 22 March 2008 19:22 To: 'At-Large' Subject: Re: [At-Large] PAST DEADLINE: GNSO Review
At 22/03/2008 12:52 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Alan,
No question that an opportunity for individual registrant to participate is a good thing (although one wonders how they could organize mobilize support, or afford ICANN
participation, but that
is not the question at hand).
The concern is that the proposal does not allow for representatives of the other trillion people who are not registrants to participate. I understand that there *may* be an opportunity to participate in working groups ("may" because it will depend on how the term stakeholders is interpreted). But if there is any value in participating in Council activities (and all of the other constituencies certainly seem to think that there is), then non-registrant users should as well.
Although I do agree in principle with you, I also believe that the "better" is the enemy of the "good". ICANN is 10 years old. Since the beginning there has been an attempt (failed so far) for individual registrants to build a constituency. We now have the choice: do we use this (tiny) window, or do we drop the opportunity waiting another 10 years for the situation to be ready for extending participation also to the non-registrant individuals? Nothing prevents in the future to create a non-registrant constituency, considering that one of the principles we have adopted in the GNSO Review was the flexibility, but to delay the first step in order to make a bigger step later might be a mistake, and might be missing an opportunity.
Just my 2c.
Cheers, Roberto
Roberto, I have highlighted one of your sentences that makes my point exactly. I want the ability to at some later time, when we perhaps have gotten our act better together, to form a non-registrant constituency.
To ALLOW this to happen, you need to define (in the proposed plan) the Non-commercial Registrant Stakeholders Group as simple the Non-commercial Stakeholders Group. By removing the "Registrant" from its definition, you allow, at some future time, for a user-type constituency to form as one of the sub-groups of this stakeholder group. By defining it as a "Registrant" stakeholders group, you are implicitly saying that its component constituencies are all registrant groups of some form. By removing it, you allow potentially all sorts of interested parties (not only users) to participate. In my mind, this increases flexibility (which you confirm was a target outcome) and I don't see what is lost.
No thing I said was meant to imply a delay.
Alan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org
I would support at least making that comment, if not more. There should be SOMEplace open to individual users. -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Roberto Gaetano Sent: Mon 3/24/2008 6:37 AM To: 'Alan Greenberg'; 'At-Large' Subject: Re: [At-Large] PAST DEADLINE: GNSO Review Alan, Would it be a good idea if ALAC presented a comment saying exactly what you outline below, i.e. that the non-commercial non-contractual stakeholder group should be open to users, not only to registrants? Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Saturday, 22 March 2008 19:22 To: 'At-Large' Subject: Re: [At-Large] PAST DEADLINE: GNSO Review
At 22/03/2008 12:52 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Alan,
No question that an opportunity for individual registrant to participate is a good thing (although one wonders how they could organize mobilize support, or afford ICANN
participation, but that
is not the question at hand).
The concern is that the proposal does not allow for representatives of the other trillion people who are not registrants to participate. I understand that there *may* be an opportunity to participate in working groups ("may" because it will depend on how the term stakeholders is interpreted). But if there is any value in participating in Council activities (and all of the other constituencies certainly seem to think that there is), then non-registrant users should as well.
Although I do agree in principle with you, I also believe that the "better" is the enemy of the "good". ICANN is 10 years old. Since the beginning there has been an attempt (failed so far) for individual registrants to build a constituency. We now have the choice: do we use this (tiny) window, or do we drop the opportunity waiting another 10 years for the situation to be ready for extending participation also to the non-registrant individuals? Nothing prevents in the future to create a non-registrant constituency, considering that one of the principles we have adopted in the GNSO Review was the flexibility, but to delay the first step in order to make a bigger step later might be a mistake, and might be missing an opportunity.
Just my 2c.
Cheers, Roberto
Roberto, I have highlighted one of your sentences that makes my point exactly. I want the ability to at some later time, when we perhaps have gotten our act better together, to form a non-registrant constituency.
To ALLOW this to happen, you need to define (in the proposed plan) the Non-commercial Registrant Stakeholders Group as simple the Non-commercial Stakeholders Group. By removing the "Registrant" from its definition, you allow, at some future time, for a user-type constituency to form as one of the sub-groups of this stakeholder group. By defining it as a "Registrant" stakeholders group, you are implicitly saying that its component constituencies are all registrant groups of some form. By removing it, you allow potentially all sorts of interested parties (not only users) to participate. In my mind, this increases flexibility (which you confirm was a target outcome) and I don't see what is lost.
No thing I said was meant to imply a delay.
Alan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.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://www.alac.icann.org *** Scanned
Alan Greenberg wrote:
Wendy, could you share your logic with us? Although I support some of the changes recommended in the report (and am leery of some as well), I do not see how At-Large really benefits other than in a utopian vision of "if the GNSO and therefore the overall Internet functions better, all users will benefit".
I think the at-large public benefits if gTLD policy is made in an effective, relatively rapid process, in which members of the public have an opportunity to participate in working groups. We've clearly not benefited from stalemate in which status quo policies stick around because even majorities can't get "consensus" to improve or change them, and in which new problems can't be dealt with in a timely manner.
It is true that there has been a lot of talk about At-Large or individual users being part of the Non-commercial Stakeholders Group. But that is all it is - talk. The BGC report makes it very clear that the 4th Stakeholder Group is for non-commercial REGISTRANTS. Admittedly, individual user registrants are part of the At-Large community, and indeed an important part. But At-Large also includes the uncountable number of users who are not registrants. And in the proposed model, they are excluded from participating in the work of the GNSO.
No more excluded than now, as I understand it. Currently, no constituency represents the individual at-large user. Under the proposed restructuring, no constituency represents all the at-large users, but at least those who are domain registrants are represented. The ALAC isn't abolished (yet), so at-large has as much/little representation there as ever. I hope we're all communicating with the ALAC reviewers @wesltakenz.com to give them the full picture for the ALAC review.
Even at the working group level, the words in the report can be interpreted as excluding non-registrants in that the report talks about working groups being composed of a wide range of "stakeholders", a terms that is otherwise used in the report to categorize registrants.
I read "stakeholder" in the working groups to include anyone, as has been the case in WGs that have used this model in advance. If that's not how all are reading it, we can easily file a comment asking for that to be made clear. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: +1.914.374.0613 // office: 617.373.7331 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/
At 22/03/2008 01:35 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Alan Greenberg wrote:
Wendy, could you share your logic with us? Although I support some of the changes recommended in the report (and am leery of some as well), I do not see how At-Large really benefits other than in a utopian vision of "if the GNSO and therefore the overall Internet functions better, all users will benefit".
I think the at-large public benefits if gTLD policy is made in an effective, relatively rapid process, in which members of the public have an opportunity to participate in working groups. We've clearly not benefited from stalemate in which status quo policies stick around because even majorities can't get "consensus" to improve or change them, and in which new problems can't be dealt with in a timely manner.
It is true that there has been a lot of talk about At-Large or individual users being part of the Non-commercial Stakeholders Group. But that is all it is - talk. The BGC report makes it very clear that the 4th Stakeholder Group is for non-commercial REGISTRANTS. Admittedly, individual user registrants are part of the At-Large community, and indeed an important part. But At-Large also includes the uncountable number of users who are not registrants. And in the proposed model, they are excluded from participating in the work of the GNSO.
No more excluded than now, as I understand it. Currently, no constituency represents the individual at-large user.
True, but that is not a reason not to try for a broader outcome, when there are seemingly few cost to doing it as indicated in the note I just sent in reply to Roberto).
Under the proposed restructuring, no constituency represents all the at-large users, but at least those who are domain registrants are represented. The ALAC isn't abolished (yet), so at-large has as much/little representation there as ever. I hope we're all communicating with the ALAC reviewers @wesltakenz.com to give them the full picture for the ALAC review.
Even at the working group level, the words in the report can be interpreted as excluding non-registrants in that the report talks about working groups being composed of a wide range of "stakeholders", a terms that is otherwise used in the report to categorize registrants.
I read "stakeholder" in the working groups to include anyone, as has been the case in WGs that have used this model in advance. If that's not how all are reading it, we can easily file a comment asking for that to be made clear.
I can easily read it that way as well, but since in the proposal, stakeholders are clearly either contracted parties or registrants, I have no high level of comfort that this same definition will not be used in creating the rules for forming working groups. Alan
--Wendy
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: +1.914.374.0613 // office: 617.373.7331 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/
I can think of a number of areas in which the interests of registrants would be at odds with those of "consumers" of Internet information, not the least of which is the significant and ongoing debate over the proper balance between registrant privacy and accountability. For this reason, I would not stand in the way of formation of a constituency of individual registrars. However, creation of this group should not -- must not, IMO -- prevent the proper representation within GNSO of Internet consumers. The need for one does not deny the need for the other, and I for one do not believe any attempt should be made to lump the two together. - Evan
Evan Leibovitch wrote:
I can think of a number of areas in which the interests of registrants would be at odds with those of "consumers" of Internet information, not the least of which is the significant and ongoing debate over the proper balance between registrant privacy and accountability.
For this reason, I would not stand in the way of formation of a constituency of individual registrars. I did, of course, mean "registrants". Sorry, too early on a Monday...
However, creation of this group should not -- must not, IMO -- prevent the proper representation within GNSO of Internet consumers. The need for one does not deny the need for the other, and I for one do not believe any attempt should be made to lump the two together.
On Mar 24, 2008, at 8:29 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
I would not stand in the way of formation of a constituency of individual registrars. However, creation of this group should not -- must not, IMO -- prevent the proper representation within GNSO of Internet consumers. The need for one does not deny the need for the other, and I for one do not believe any attempt should be made to lump the two together.
Broadly speaking, I see three distinct groups - contracted parties (registrants, registrars and registries), domain name users (commercial, non-commercial and individual) and infrastructure service providers (software developers, telecoms, etc.) Within each of the subsets, further segmentation of the stakeholder groups is probably necessary - i.e. sponsored TLD registries, generic TLD registries, commercial registrants, individual registrants and so on... I don't think the GNSO can ever be all that functional unless there is a material way for each of these groups to meaningfully participate in the work of the GNSO. I've always found it to be useful to think of any changes to the structure of the GNSO in terms of what the long-term picture should look like. It would be great if the community could agree on a roadmap that would help us guide our short-term efforts. -ross
Ross Rader wrote:
Broadly speaking, I see three distinct groups - contracted parties (registrants, registrars and registries), domain name users (commercial, non-commercial and individual) and infrastructure service providers (software developers, telecoms, etc.) This grouping excludes those who use the internet (receive spam, are exposed to squatters and parkers and phishers) yet never themselves register a domain or serve any information of their own. I guess this is the constituency ALAC is supposed to serve but it's not any of the above. And this group -- the consumers of the info all these domain owners are providing -- deserve a seat at the policy table as well.
I don't think the GNSO can ever be all that functional unless there is a material way for each of these groups to meaningfully participate in the work of the GNSO.
Agreed -- so long as GNSO does not obsess with the needs of the providers of Internet services to the exclusion of those on the other end of the transaction. - Evan
On Mar 24, 2008, at 11:13 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
This grouping excludes those who use the internet (receive spam, are exposed to squatters and parkers and phishers) yet never themselves register a domain or serve any information of their own.
I think you are describing a subset, or a set related to "domain name users". For my tastes, "Internet Users" is too broad a classification to be descriptive enough of what the purpose of what a constituency might be. Regardless of the label, we are talking about the same people.
Agreed -- so long as GNSO does not obsess with the needs of the providers of Internet services to the exclusion of those on the other end of the transaction
I don't know how useful the "providers" label actually is. 90% of the segments with a stake in the work of the GNSO, domain name users being almost the sole exception, are providing Internet services in some way shape or form. I think the more meaningful distinction relates to whether or not there is a direct contractual relationship with ICANN or not (meaning registrants, registrars and registries). Within the existing GNSO, I strongly believe the imbalance stems from the fact that the intellectual property protection industry has subverted the original purpose of at least two constituencies beyond their own which puts all other parties, most notably registrants, at a distinct disadvantage in the process. -ross
Ross Rader wrote:
On Mar 24, 2008, at 11:13 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
This grouping excludes those who use the internet (receive spam, are exposed to squatters and parkers and phishers) yet never themselves register a domain or serve any information of their own.
I think you are describing a subset, or a set related to "domain name users". For my tastes, "Internet Users" is too broad a classification to be descriptive enough of what the purpose of what a constituency might be. Regardless of the label, we are talking about the same people.
We differ in scale and the orientation of ther pyramid. In my world view, all of these other groups are subsets of "Internet Users". Even those who register domains in some contexts are Internet users in others.
90% of the segments with a stake in the work of the GNSO, domain name users being almost the sole exception, are providing Internet services in some way shape or form. I'm not disagreeing... which is why, one could argue, that ICANN (and GNSO in particular) by its actions and structure more resembles a large, multi-faceted industry consortium than anything pretending to serve the public interest -- the CompTIA of the Internet. Arguably the existence of ALAC -- and the GAC on good days -- appear to be all that keeps ICANN from simply being seen as simply that. Such a POV explains the many who see ICANN's at-large initiatives as nothing more than a high-expense publicity stunt.
It's indeed likely that 90% of the current segments who have been allowed a stake in GNSO to date are providers. What is worth debate is whether such overwhelming dominance by one side of the Internet services transaction serves the public interest or ICANN's longer term legitimacy.
Within the existing GNSO, I strongly believe the imbalance stems from the fact that the intellectual property protection industry has subverted the original purpose of at least two constituencies beyond their own which puts all other parties, most notably registrants, at a distinct disadvantage in the process.
From the POV of internet users, I would argue that all this comes across as internal "Internet industry" infighting which they barely have the right to attend, much less speak to. Other sectors have allowed themselves to be bullied in this way by the IP lobby, in part because they did not seek a public interest constituency alongside to assist in the pushback. Either they were too out of touch to understand the value of public support, or they were too wary of creating an influential public-interest within ICANN lest _they_ ever got on its wrong side.
In a previous email you indicated a desire for a public-interest-driven roadmap that might drive future movements in this area. Be careful what you wish for... - Evan
On Mar 24, 2008, at 12:48 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
In a previous email you indicated a desire for a public-interest- driven roadmap that might drive future movements in this area. Be careful what you wish for...
First and foremost, I'm an internet user, so I would welcome this. I completely agree with your view of the pyramid, but would want to understand more what ICANN has to do with the general internet vs. its specific area of capability (domains, dns, etc.). Secondly, I work for and internet services provider, so I would welcome this. What's good for the internet is good for users of the internet is good for our business. I don't think that taking a long term view of what is good for the internet should be antithetical to business interests. If specific business do find themselves in this position, well, too bad for them.
What is worth debate is whether such overwhelming dominance by one side of the Internet services transaction serves the public interest or ICANN's longer term legitimacy.
I don't know if this is true. I mean, I agree with you that there is imbalance today, but I'm not sure if the debate would be useful. Some might find it interesting or be persuaded that this sort of dominance isn't tenable, but I'm not sure how many of those folks are out there. In other words, call me naive, but I'm not sure there's a lot of opposition on this point. Anyways, as you've already said, I think we agree :) -r
completely agree with your view of the pyramid, but would want to understand more what ICANN has to do with the general internet vs. its specific area of capability (domains, dns, etc.).
Putting words in Evan's mouth, it's the effect that domains and DNS have on the general interest. For example, to the extent that ICANN either has rules that encourage phishing or fails to enforce rules that would deter it, it is not acting in the public interst that its status as a non-profit requires it to do. R's, John
There is a fundamental issue here. It is what is the Internet ? There are three main visions: - IAB/IETF - "THE (ICANN logical) NETWORK of networks" (Internet from Vint Cerf). Decentralised, network centric. - ISOC - "the network of (ISP physical) NETWORKS" (Catenet from Louis Pouzin, Vint copied from). Distributed, user centric. - WSIS - "the (all our community virtual) NETWORKS of the network of networks" (Intlnet). Distributed, person centric. In the first vision there is one single internet. In the second there is a choice of Internet offers (I am free to chose among Google, Yahoo! and M$). In the third there is a multiplicity of privately built ways of access throught common resources to the diversity of what others want to offer. The problem is that the real internet governance and market offer are a mixture of the three vision, for more than 30 years. For example, a registrant can be : a network system client, a network user, or the boss. A non-registrant : no-one, an end-user, or a person denied his/her on-line humanity. This translates in the two ways to consider the Internet Right, either as an international business right extension or as based upon an 32nd Human Right article on the human digital environment and ecology. jfc At 17:48 24/03/2008, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Ross Rader wrote:
On Mar 24, 2008, at 11:13 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
This grouping excludes those who use the internet (receive spam, are exposed to squatters and parkers and phishers) yet never themselves register a domain or serve any information of their own.
I think you are describing a subset, or a set related to "domain name users". For my tastes, "Internet Users" is too broad a classification to be descriptive enough of what the purpose of what a constituency might be. Regardless of the label, we are talking about the same people.
We differ in scale and the orientation of ther pyramid. In my world view, all of these other groups are subsets of "Internet Users". Even those who register domains in some contexts are Internet users in others.
90% of the segments with a stake in the work of the GNSO, domain name users being almost the sole exception, are providing Internet services in some way shape or form. I'm not disagreeing... which is why, one could argue, that ICANN (and GNSO in particular) by its actions and structure more resembles a large, multi-faceted industry consortium than anything pretending to serve the public interest -- the CompTIA of the Internet. Arguably the existence of ALAC -- and the GAC on good days -- appear to be all that keeps ICANN from simply being seen as simply that. Such a POV explains the many who see ICANN's at-large initiatives as nothing more than a high-expense publicity stunt.
It's indeed likely that 90% of the current segments who have been allowed a stake in GNSO to date are providers. What is worth debate is whether such overwhelming dominance by one side of the Internet services transaction serves the public interest or ICANN's longer term legitimacy.
Within the existing GNSO, I strongly believe the imbalance stems from the fact that the intellectual property protection industry has subverted the original purpose of at least two constituencies beyond their own which puts all other parties, most notably registrants, at a distinct disadvantage in the process.
From the POV of internet users, I would argue that all this comes across as internal "Internet industry" infighting which they barely have the right to attend, much less speak to. Other sectors have allowed themselves to be bullied in this way by the IP lobby, in part because they did not seek a public interest constituency alongside to assist in the pushback. Either they were too out of touch to understand the value of public support, or they were too wary of creating an influential public-interest within ICANN lest _they_ ever got on its wrong side.
In a previous email you indicated a desire for a public-interest-driven roadmap that might drive future movements in this area. Be careful what you wish for...
- Evan
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org
+1 At 14:52 24/03/2008, Ross Rader wrote:
Broadly speaking, I see three distinct groups - contracted parties (registrants, registrars and registries), domain name users (commercial, non-commercial and individual) and infrastructure service providers (software developers, telecoms, etc.) Within each of the subsets, further segmentation of the stakeholder groups is probably necessary - i.e. sponsored TLD registries, generic TLD registries, commercial registrants, individual registrants and so on...
I don't think the GNSO can ever be all that functional unless there is a material way for each of these groups to meaningfully participate in the work of the GNSO.
I've always found it to be useful to think of any changes to the structure of the GNSO in terms of what the long-term picture should look like. It would be great if the community could agree on a roadmap that would help us guide our short-term efforts.
-ross
participants (10)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Brendler, Beau -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Evan Leibovitch -
Jeffrey A. Williams -
JFC Morfin -
John Levine -
Roberto Gaetano -
Ross Rader -
Wendy Seltzer