RE: [council] Rodenbaugh Comment re GNSO Restructure Amendments to ICANN Bylaws
Mike,
Happy to discuss details with you anytime you like but it is probably
more effective in a mode other than email.
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 1:37 PM
> To: gnso-council-draft2@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: RE: [council] Rodenbaugh Comment re GNSO Restructure
> Amendments to ICANN Bylaws
>
>
> Hi Adrian,
>
> Of course I am not ignoring you, I've had a busy work week.
>
> And of course I was not criticizing you personally, only
> pointing out the fact that there is much amalgamation between
> registrars and registries, as has been demonstrated by their
> Council reps. I could also have referred to another
> registrar Councilor whose company is actively engaged in
> ccTLD registry businesses. (Hi Tim! ... but he's not a CEO
> yet, so not quite as sexy an example.)
>
> I refer to the Contracting Parties' "effective
> stranglehold/veto" because under the current and future
> system, the Contracting Parties have much more alignment in
> their interests and in their positions than do the Commercial
> Users and the Non-Commercial Users. It obviously has been
> far harder for the non-contracting parties to come to any
> agreement among themselves, than for the contracting parties,
> on almost every issue in the history of ICANN.
> Hopefully, that will decrease as NCUC becomes more diverse in
> their representation and interests, and the balance of power
> between commercial and non-commercial interests is evened --
> but that remains to be seen.
>
> Based on the very clear trend over the past few years, the
> contracting parties are likely to become more aligned in the
> future rather than less.
> When they vote together, there is little anyone can do to
> stop whatever they want, except with unanimous opposition
> among fragmented and historically unaligned parties. The
> "double voting" compounds this as contract parties need to
> get just six people to a vote, while the non-contracting
> parties have to get twelve unanimous votes just to counter
> them -- which I believe has never happened before, and
> probably will be less likely to ever happen in the future
> given the shift in power in that "House," from 9/3 to 6/6.
>
> Chuck mentioned a few examples that he says show unaligned
> interests among Contracting Parties, but I do not agree with
> several of those, including WHOIS and PEDNR. Perhaps I need
> to understand better, and would love to hear any further
> explanation. Perhaps RrC and RyC have voted differently a
> few specific times, but generally their interests are aligned
> on almost all issues. If policy development might
> conceivably change the way contract parties do business, they
> generally fight like hell, together, to prevent it. I've
> seen it too many times to count. We've had exactly one
> policy development in three years that changed business
> methods -- wrt domain tasting. I also think any "unaligned"
> instances will become much fewer and farther between, under
> the new system and as industry amalgamation between
> registrars and registries likely increases.
>
> I also do not recall a single example of the RyC Councilors
> ever voting individually rather than in a block, though Chuck
> says an instance may be coming, and I'm sure he'll remind me
> if I'm forgetting something else. The new RyC charter, by
> Chuck's description, sounds unacceptable on this point since
> the RyC can still force its Councilors to vote in a block,
> and typically always has done so in the past. Yet I would be
> remiss to not point out that the BC has had the same rule
> forever, and we have not changed it in our new Charter. But
> we have not and will not have anywhere near the level of
> power as the RyC, we will have 1/3 their power. Also we have
> voted differently in the past when there was not an adopted
> BC position on point.
> Also, I would prefer we eliminated that requirement in the
> BC, for the same reasons I think it should be eliminated in
> the RyC or anywhere else.
>
> It is important for the Contracting Parties to have the same
> number of Councilors as the Non-Contracting Parties, so there
> is more hope of greater diversity of opinion, demographics
> and geography, as well as ultimate consensus.
>
> Avri, I don't have facts to back up that assertion about
> individual vs.
> commercial reg fees. But commercial interests include
> domainers and brandholders, who average several hundred (more
> likely, well over a
> thousand) domain names apiece. I know at least a dozen
> domainers (including a bunch of ICANN accredited registrars)
> that have over 100,000 registrations each. I know at least
> 25 major brands that have over 20,000 registrations each.
> And that's just people I know personally. I don't know any
> individuals who own more than two, and I know of dozens of
> free hosting sites, social networks, communication tools and
> other ways that individuals communicate online without need
> of a domain name. Also, we're talking gTLDs, and many
> individuals must gravitate towards ccTLDs because the good
> gTLD names have consistently been snagged by commercial interests (and
> registrars) for many years now. Stats in this area would be
> useful for policy development, particularly PEDNR, IRTP and
> WHOIS, but relevant data could only come from the Registrars
> (or some sort of big ICANN study), so I will not hold my
> breath waiting for it to appear.
>
> I am happy we are having this discussion. I am not trying to
> "tirade", but merely put my beliefs into the open as you all
> know I have a habit of doing (perhaps sometimes too directly)
> -- as I feel I've been elected to do.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> Rodenbaugh Law
> 548 Market Street
> San Francisco, CA 94104
> +1.415.738.8087
> www.rodenbaugh.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis
> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 2:09 AM
> To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-council-draft2@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: 'BC List'; 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: RE: [council] Rodenbaugh Comment re GNSO Restructure
> Amendments to ICANN Bylaws
>
>
> Mike,
>
> Thanks for the "shout out". I'm honoured (correct Australian
> spelling!).
>
> I appreciate your "personal" comments.
>
> One quick question;
>
> When you refer to the following "Effectively today they are
> one block with effective veto power over anything", what do you mean?
>
> Either we do or we don't which is it?
>
> Adrian Kinderis
> Chief Executive Officer
> Registrar, Registry Services Provider oh.. and I own a few
> names, so throw in Registrant.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 August 2009 2:25 AM
> To: gnso-council-draft2@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: 'BC List'; 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: [council] Rodenbaugh Comment re GNSO Restructure
> Amendments to ICANN Bylaws
>
>
> 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
>
>
>