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

[James Love]

Thomas, your recommendation about who should evaluate the support of the
non-commerical community is who, exactly?
Jamie


> 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>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


-- 
James Love
http://www.cptech.org mailto:james.love at cptech.org
mobile +1.202.361.3040