[Chapter-delegates] Internet Society Appointments to theNTIA/IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group

[Evan Leibovitch]

On 3 July 2014 12:09, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

>  In democracies, the ultimate authority (parliament) is elected by all
> those affected, it is not chosen by a NomCom.
>

That's because the ICANN "Nominating Committee" is misnamed.

What ICANN has is a selection committee. A true *NOMINATING* Committee
would create a ballot of eligible candidates from which an electorate would
choose representatives. It's that last little step -- having an electorate
-- that ICANN has consciously dispensed with. It's why ICANN has worked so
hard to evade the traditional structure of nonprofits (such as our
Chapter's) whose Boards are accountable to a membership.

Once upon a time there were direct elections to ICANN, which were gamed.
The response to gaming was to eliminate elections, rather than address the
gaming issue. Perhaps that over-reaction needs to be revisited, especially
now that e-voting tech has advanced so much lately.

My suggestion is that the ultimate oversigh for ICANN's economic regulatory
> function should be the end-users, that is the registrants of domain names
> (people/organizations that hold domain name registrations).



End users != registrants.

This error occurs frequently within ICANN, and is a constant source of
required vigilance.

End users are the people sitting at screens or on their mobiles, who access
the Internet without any need for a domain name or intention to possess
one. I reject the assertion by many in the domain industry that everyone
needs to own a domain, that each person on earth is just a potential
registrant who hasn't yet been adequately marketed to.

Among the current family of registrants -- owning a substantial chunk of
the total domain name pool -- are name speculators and squatters. ICANN's
tolerance of their presence creates artificial scarcity, raises the cost of
Internet entry to startup businesses, and causes legitimate site and brand
owners to needlessly register defensive names. (They also dramatically
inflate the total number of extant domains, which is now arguably a source
of ICANN's own financial dependence. But that's a different thread.)

In this family are also those who create domain names with intent to
defraud. This is why the Red Cross request for domain name protection came
in for special attention at the ICANN Board recently (supported by the GAC
and ALAC), why the lack of enforced WHOIS accuracy has become a source of
controversy, and why the ALAC continues to challenge the utility of gTLD
"Public Interest Committments" over the protests of the domain industry.

So, Richard, I must take issue with your definition. While the interests of
registrants often have much in common with those of end users, they are
most certainly not 100% in sync and occasionally in direct opposition.

Registrants have their own constituencies within the "Non-Contracted House"
half of ICANN's GNSO, from which they protect their interests. That's not
At-Large, which, like ISOC, exists to assert the perspective of end-users
-- the billions outside ICANN's direct revenue stream who are nonetheless
impacted by its actions.

- Evan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20140703/d644b420/attachment.htm>