Tom
From the ISPCP perspective I don't think I have anything much to add here, other than to endorse much of what has already been said. We certainly need to ensure that all relevant stakeholders are involved in ICANN and there are many ways of cutting the cloth and getting a reasonable fit. With the current GNSO arrangement we have one that is pretty much inclusive and we should focus on making it work better, not start changing it without due cause. Unless there is a cast iron case for doing so, to keep adding additional groups would jeopardise progress.
The only other point I'd like to emphasis is one that Marilyn briefly alluded to below. Over the next 5 years or so the Internet is likely to radically change as it becomes the focus for technology evolution that will radically change the way we provide a vast range of services that in the past, were not Internet based. ICANNs role in that development is essential, but if we're to try and evolve the ICANN model to include every party impacted, it would become totally unmanageable. For me that' one of the major arguments to ensure ICANN's mission is clearly defined and doesn't stray into areas which don't fit with its key competences. Regards Tony -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: 22 June 2006 17:08 To: 'Thomas Keller'; 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] new string/re diversity I know that sometimes it is tempting to think that "we" have a unique view of the world, and that the world resolves [no pun intended] around ICANN. In fact, the Internet is much more complicated and complex, as is the WWW, and the evolving world of the NGN and other forms of IP applications that have nothing to do with ICANN, other than that they are reliant upon the unique indicators and the reliability of the small percentage of the Internet's infrastructure that ICANN influences. For instance, certainly, the role of ICANN in its limited but critical role is a foundational aspect of the Internet. However, it is the Internet industry that builds and operates the Internet itself -- and of course, DNS registries and registrars are part and a critical part of the make up of the larger world. It concerned me when I attended the recent U.S. Congressional hearing on the dot com agreement that some were portraying ICANN as in charge of security of the Internet, or equating DNS with the entirety of the Internet. I saw a little too much "enthusiasm" on several parties parts to portray how important "their role" was. I think we all need to maintain perspective on the need for all of us to understand that we co-exist in a larger Internet world and that ICANN has a limited, albeit critical set of roles and activities. Of course, we need to always encourage more companies and entities who have relevant interest in what ICANN does to become engaged, while not seeking to expand ICANN's scope or mission. That is a challenge, isn't it? To date, it has been hard, given the lack of early agenda and programme information. However, I'm pleased to see the very recent approach that the ICANN staff has used in their last edit of the programme for this meeting. While the agenda and the programme are very disappointingly late -- [and that is a topic for improvement if companies are to get information early enough to approve travel and participation] still the new approach with some bits of information about who a workshop is designed for, etc. can help us to outreach to the parts of companies who are indeed interested and engaged in areas where ICANN is relevant to them. Let me address one of the points below regarding who a web hoster is/may be: I might suggest that it is easy to get baffled by terminology. Or if you are more technical in nature or expertise, it may be easy, accidentally to overlook the need to speak in laymanese. Just so we aren't arguing past each other, let me suggest a flexible "general" resource that I find works well in international settings as well -- wikipedia. Let me use it as a reference document for a minute. A quick glance through the range of kinds of "hosting" and the different kinds of providers, and the examples of different kinds of companies/businesses engaged in web hosting that can be found in that easy to find resource may be informative. Web hosters come in many sizes. The BC does have some members who offer web hosting. I am aware that there are web hosters who are members of the ISPCP. What I see in the "hosting" industry/sector is quite diverse, and that seems to be what you are suggesting, Tom: no single model, no single kind of company, large, gigantic, and micro-enterprises. I'd suggest that web hosters are welcome to join the BC, and if they meet the ISPCP criteria, undoubtedly they might pursue membership/activity there; I leave that in the able hands of Mr. Holmes to comment on as chair of the constituency. And, Tom, you are suggesting, aren't you, that also web hosters who are registrars are already members of the Registrar constituency? Or that you would welcome them? As to the quite different kinds of industries -- I'm sitting in SG3, and have been discussing this topic with some service providers from Asian island countries -- and they are describing the diversity to me as well, including some very large, but distributed providers, and then some very small local/regional providers that are new entrants in some cases. Must be the global Internet and open standards and innovation at work. :-) -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 3:45 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Regarding Letter from American Intellectual Property Law Association Tony Am 21.06.2006 schrieb Anthony Harris:
And thus am rather surprised at your conclusion that: "The definition also seems to meet the needs of web host and ISP operators,"
If it does, I have yet to meet one...
With 1&1 and Godaddy as very large international webhosts supporting formulation 1 I would think that this conclusion can be drawn. Which brings me to another point. Apparantly webhosting companies are not represented in the current constituency setup and hence not much is known about their interessts. Since hosting is one of the real crucial services of the net we might be advised well to think about incoperating them somehow into our structure. Best, tom