Evan and all, ALL registrants are users. Not all users are registrants. Here inlies the difference between "users only" and registrants whom are also by defination users. But we have been down this road before. -----Original Message-----

From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Sent: Mar 24, 2008 9:48 AM To: Ross Rader <ross@tucows.com> Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] GNSO Review

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

Regards, Jeffrey A. Williams 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 Phone: 214-244-4827