Mike, I'm sure your passionate tirade will generate a lot of comments and there is certainly a lot to be said. One of the main points for me is the resentment you speak of. It has become clear over the past few months that there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction in the "non-contracted" side of the GNSO. Both the opinions you voice in your email and the ongoing "NCUC controversy" are obvious signs of that. It is something that, on a personal level, has me worried. I care about the GNSO and I believe in the way it brings together such diverging interests in a (nearly) homogeneous way. I think it would be a great shame for all concerned if we were not able to maintain this 'entente cordiale' in the long run. This is why I feel strongly that discussion should be encouraged on the points you raise. This despite the fact that, as the general manager of a company that is forced to have a direct contract with ICANN in order to do business, I feel that a lot of what you say borders on propaganda and certainly paints a slanted picture of the real situation. I resent what I feel is an attempt to stigmatise the contracted parties. In your assessment of the situation, I don't think you should forget that the contracted parties find themselves in the unique situation of having to negotiate their key business contracts in a forum that includes other parties in addition to the two contracting parties involved. I'm not sure that when your law firm negotiates a contract with a customer, it discusses the details of that contract with third parties and even allows them to vote on certain aspects of that contract... I think if we can all strive for a little understanding of the other entities' points of view, we can move forward in a positive way with the restructuring effort. And address what are very clear and very real feelings of resentment which, I fully agree, must be addressed. Thanks, Stéphane Le 24/08/09 18:25, « Mike Rodenbaugh » <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > > For nearly three years I have represented the Business Constituency as one > of its Officers and GNSO Councilors, but make these comments in my personal > capacity only, as they have not been reviewed by the BC. > > Why is ICANN refusing to allow new constituencies in the Contracted Party > SG? > > There are applications for two subsets of newTLD registry operators -- > geoTLDs and IDN TLDs. It seems reasonable for there to be a "Resellers > Constituency." These commercial entities have interests wholly aligned with > those of the Contracted Parties. Indeed resellers effectively are > contracted parties, and prospective registry operators will have a contract > with ICANN upon making their application. Meanwhile they have an "as soon > as possible" expectancy of such a contract, and then a registry contract. > Yet the Board and Staff, without any explanation that I have seen, have > unilaterally decided that no other entities will be allowed into the > "Contracted Party" House. > > These entities do not belong in the Non-Contracted Party SG, as they simply > would dilute the power and voice of the vast majority of entities and > individuals in the world, who do not rely substantially on ICANN contracts > (or the expectation of ICANN contract) for their livelihood, but are > materially impacted by the policies of ICANN and its contracting parties. > Resellers and prospective registry applicants (if that was their primary > purpose, at least) would not be allowed in the existing or proposed Business > Constituency, ISPCPC or IPC -- and should not be allowed to dilute the > voices of the new Commercial SG and Non-Commercial SG. Representatives of > those parties have indicated assent, however reluctantly in many cases, to > this restructuring plan on the basis that parties aligned with ICANN > Contracting Parties would find their voice through that House, not ours. > > The voices and voting power of so-called "Non-Contracting" commercial > interests are already heavily diluted under this restructuring scheme, with > the NCSG gaining much and the Contracting Parties losing nothing whatsoever. > Yet it is those "Non-Contracting" commercial interests that essentially fund > by far the greatest portion of ICANN's budget through their domain > registration fees, and it is those commercial interests that make domain > names valuable. While those interests suffer much already in the proposed > restructure, now it will be proposed that 'contracting party' interests be > allowed in our House as well? > > The result will be an even stronger stranglehold on policy development than > is already wielded by the Contracting Parties. Their two Constituencies are > essentially aligned in interest on virtually all issues. Alignment will > only increase if ICANN repeals restrictions on cross-ownership, which anyway > do not exist with respect to ccTLDs in most cases, so we have seen > registrars and registries teaming up on ventures for many years now. One of > the GNSO Councilors, for the Registrar Constituency, is CEO of a registry > services company. Effectively today they are one block with effective veto > power over anything. The best way to cement that in place is to forbid any > other voices from joining their House. > > Why do Contracting Parties maintain double voting? > > It is unwise that the Contracting Parties are allowed to continue with > 'double voting' on the new Council. Is it not a main point of the > restructure to increase participation and diversity on the Council? Why > does this only apply to one House, and not the other? Particularly in the > near future with hundreds more new TLD operators, and most likely hundreds > more registrars, there is no excuse to allow just six seats in that House, > while there are twelve in the other. That makes it twice as hard to > persuade a single vote to "switch sides", which might make the difference in > many cases. [Not sure if this is changed in their new charters, but for > similar reasons it also should be forbidden that the Registry Constituency > Councilors be required to vote as a block as they are today, rather than > individually as in the Registrar Constituency.] > > ICANN should be well aware that this entire GNSO restructure has been a > bitter pill for the "Non-Contracting" business community to swallow. Their > power and voices will be diminished and those who have been involved know > it. It has not caused such recent uproar since the newTLD process has > proved to be a more immediate and distressing battle for some in that > community, though by no means all. These details are also rather > uninteresting for any normal person to consider, particularly anyone who has > not participated on Council. From my perspective, these specific elements > of the new restructure could result in a lot more bitterness in the years to > come, and appear wholly contrary to the spirit and stated intention of the > ICANN Board in its mandate of this effort. Moreover, they were primary > facets of the compromise reached in 2008, which now appear to have been > discarded by the Board and Staff, without explanation or reason. > > Sincerely, > > Mike Rodenbaugh > Rodenbaugh Law > 548 Market Street > San Francisco, CA 94104 > +1.415.738.8087 > www.rodenbaugh.com >
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature