At 11:37 PM 7/13/99 , Jon Zittrain wrote:
>Jay,
>
>Seems to me the problems are with constituencies generally, since they
>can't be defined perfectly mutually exclusively, and a simple ban on same
>entity participation across them would eliminate instances where it really
>might make sense to have multiple participation--why ought a single
>entrepreneur have to choose between an IDNO and the commercial
>constituency?
And what you have today is better?
In one case, you have a system where every
entity gets to choose one constituency of
their choice. Today, the vast majority of
domain name stakeholders are completely
disenfranchised.
>--while allowing organizations with multiple individuals to
>assign them separately to each group anyway. If the voting mechanisms for
>names council rep were the same across constituencies I could see a rule
>where someone only gets one vote and has to choose in which constituency to
>place it.
Funny, that's exactly how the Paris Draft
handled this issue.
We can rehash all of the arguments that
went into the Paris Draft, but given the
ICANN Board's proclivity to accept easily
captured structures, I doubt that any
good would result.
>So long as the constituencies aren't just working groups (in
>which case it wouldn't be as controversial to have open participation) but
>also elect names council members according to their own rules, there are
>going to be problems.
>
>Anyway, we seem to roughly agree here, except that you're more confident in
>one particular constituency model (one not adopted by the board) than I am
>in any of them. You hold me to a high standard to ask that I have been
>reading everything on IFWP and posting public displays of support (or not)
>on each issue as it arises. I can't meet that standard. I saw the
>presentation of a consensus document in Singapore (posted at
><http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/singapore-0399/archive/DNSOdraft.html>),
> which certainly doesn't highlight the multiple representation issue so
>learly. Please, if you think I'm getting the history wrong, by all means
>help me out instead of lobbing cheap shots that say I'm willfully ignoring
>the truth for some evil end. ...Jonathan
I'm sorry if you feel abused, Jonathan,
but why have you all of a sudden become
the voice of a "reasonable" ICANN -- an
ICANN apologist, if you prefer.
If you were so concerned, shouldn't you
have been involved when it could have
made a difference?
Jay.
>At 09:54 PM 7/13/99 , Jay Fenello wrote:
>>At 08:55 PM 7/13/99 , Jon Zittrain wrote:
>> >This is one reason why the constituencies seem so unwieldy to me, and the
>> >arbitrariness of their definition is clear: commercial trademark interests
>> >get votes both through the tm and commercial constituencies; include
>> >individuals within non-commercial and they get one set, include them as
>> >part of an IDNO and they get two. Funny, though: I was there in Singapore
>> >when it seemed clear that consensus had been built around the
>> >constituency-based DNSO proposal. At the time it must have seemed like pie
>> >slices for everyone.
>>
>>
>>This is not funny at all.
>>
>>The problem here seems to be that people
>>involved with ICANN would rather ignore
>>the history, than acknowledge it.
>>
>>The problem of overlapping constituency
>>membership was explicitly addressed in the
>>Paris draft, and it was one of the most
>>contentious items discussed in Singapore.
>>
>>The fact that the board ignored our position,
>>is only made worse by your flippant remarks.
>>Where were your comments when this was posted
>>to the public lists, Jonathan?
>>
>>Still Upset in Atlanta,
>>
>>Jay.
>
