NCDNHC - organizational conflict of interests. (Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN Board Solicits Input

[Thomas Roessler]

On 2002-07-09 19:08:15 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:

>The SO structure of ICANN is based on the idea that domain name  
>policy has distinct sets of stakeholders called constituencies and 
>that each of them should be represented in the formulation of  
>policy, and especially drawn upon when aspects of policy directly  
>bear upon the constituency in question. ICANN management should be 
>commended for giving us our due in this instance.

We don't disagree on this.  Bad enough, as Alexander already  
pointed out, one of the applicants (!) has built up the trap of 
specific benefits for the NCDNHC.  That is, of benefits specifically 
directed to those _representing_ the non-commercial world.  (As 
opposed to those represented.)

>>Even if the NCDNHC is not "associated" with the bid, it would  
>>clearly benefit from it. 

>The noncommercial participants in ICANN's process are SUPPOSED to  
>benefit from the redelegation of .org.  That's what you don't seem 
>to understand.

You seem to have the example (!) from section 2c, surplus funds, of  
Milton's Great .Org Policy in mind.  You may, however, wish to read  
the criteria which are actually to be used for the evaluation: These 
criteria only mention the more general "noncommercial Internet user  
community" (actually, that text seems to have been cut & pasted from 
section 1a of the policy).

>The opportunity for noncommercial participants to evaluate bids  
>based on how they, as noncommercial community members, would  
>benefit from them is a feature, not a bug.

As long as they really do so "as noncommercial community members", 
we don't have any disagreement.  As soon as they do so as 
specifically interested parties (in the sense described above), 
something is seriously wrong.

>Roessler, I don't know who you are but I do know that you're not a 
>member of the constituency.  This list is devoted to open  
>discussion of pro-noncommercial policies among noncommercial  
>organizations.  If you have a case to make as to why what you  
>propose is in OUR interests, make it.  Otherwise, please go away.

Is this the kind of objectivity the NCDNHC is also going to apply to 
the bids?  Is this the kind of respect you have for .org  
registrants?

(And I thought .edu means educated and well-behaved people...)
-- 
Thomas Roessler                        <roessler at does-not-exist.org>