Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> The core point I was trying to make is that there is a significant
> constituency in ICANN -- At-Large -- that is happy with (most of the)
> the outcomes, if not necessarily the processes, of the current
> situation. There is a major component of ICANN -- a bylaw-mandated
> constituency -- that has been SO disenfranchised by the current
> (so-called MSM) processes that any apparent display of sane decision
> making -- even if made by unaccountable edict -- is seen as a
> win. This is not an endorsement of the status quo, but at least a sign
> that someone is listening. Key to the solution is truly bringing all
> voices to the table so that such points of view are seen as neither
> surprising nor irrelevant.

Evan, liking one decision or even one set of decisions of a dictator is not a 
good reason for supporting a dictatorship. If you and others truly feel that 
the NCSG/NCUC charter which allows non-registrants with non-commercial 
interests in the name space to ahve a voice in ICANN is insufficient (*) then 
I think you should make an argument for the creation of a new SG or 
constituency which represents those non-registration users with commercial 
interests in the name space. Now as we know the CSG is highly resistant to 
change and the adoption of new constituencies (which having had the NPOC 
forced upon NCSG before adoption of the SG charter I feel is a suspicious act 
of the staff/board again, since they seem unwilling to push the CSG 
similarly). However, if there are enough interested users out there and you 
feel strongly enough, gather them up and propose a new CSG consituency of CUC 
which fills in that gap. If and when that constituency is blocked, then you 
can continue to claim that ICANN's MSM is fundamentally broken by excluding 
people who want to be involved. If you can make a reasonable case I'm sure 
NCUC and probably NCSG would support both the formation of the new 
constituency and any claim that its blocking is undermining the MSM.

Decisions are made by those who turn up. Claiming the support of a silent 
majority without any mechanism for demonstrating that support is a political 
shell game.

In the meantime, ALAC supporting this dictatorial stance is something I 
cannot understand on either principal (rule of "law") or practicality: it's 
primary implications are a gross distortion and expansion of existing 
trademark claims and have far worse implications for commercial and 
non-commercial users alike than the closed generic TLD issue that recently 
led to a split in NCSG opinion, IMAO.


(*) The fact that there's misunderstanding about requiring a registration to 
take part in NCSG/NCUC is a failure of outreach on our part but criticising 
us for not being open to such registrations is different from crtiticising us 
for not recruiting sufficient people from that included community.


-- 
Professor Andrew A Adams                      [log in to unmask]
Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and
Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan       http://www.a-cubed.info/