Re: Blocking International DNS

[Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner () nic-naa net>]

> Also while different segments may have some level of participation
> (including folks that claim they represent the users which they do
> not) by design ICANN is a membership less organization so the multi
> stake holder model is a lie and the bottom up process when the bottom
> does not have the same level of resources to participate as some of
> the big corp/lobby groups, ends being a fiasco.

the dissolution of the protocol supporting organization in december 
2002 removed it as an entity contributing voting seats to the icann 
board. the advisory role survived in the technical liaison group, now 
the target of a proposal that could eliminate it too as a entity 
contributing non-voting seats to the icann board [1].

and as i've pointed out previously, no later than icann-10, in 
montavideo, no isp, nsp, asp, ... operational interests were present 
in the "internet service provider constituency", only the trademark 
interests of the participating operators, e.g., verizon.

some responsibility for the non-effectiveness, even of the 
public-private-multi-stakeholder-bottom-up-consensus-driven model 
chosen for the new entity, goes to the industry actors which either 
withdrew their participation, or limited their participation to 
non-operational, non-technical participation.

btw, i spent quite a bit of my time with the berkman center 
researchers working on accountability and transparency on just the 
issue of how users can be represented and i think it a hard problem.


-e

[1] http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#tlg-review-2010