Some comments on the GNSO reform process

[Milton L Mueller]

Wow, this is my response only to the first of three sets of questions. I will try to have a complete paper, in hard copy form, for distribution at the NCUC meeting in PR.
 

NCUC Response to GNSO Reform Questions (early draft discussion paper)

 

* Would four broad Stakeholder Groups of "Registries," "Registrars," 

"Commercial Users" and "Non-Commercial Users" be an appropriate 

way to balance these objectives and organize elements of the GNSO's 

work? 

 

Yes. NCUC believes that the proposed method of grouping stakeholders would be a significant improvement over the status quo. It reflects a more balanced form of representation and a definition of categories that more closely matches real differences in the "stakes" in ICANN issues. The groups are general enough to flexibly accommodate change over time.

 

We are, however, concerned about the distinction between "stakeholder groups" and "constituencies." We oppose adding yet another layer to an already complex representational and organizational scheme. We would prefer to see the "Stakeholder Groups" and "Constituency" categories collapsed into one, and will treat the two as interchangeable terms going forward.

 

* Would creation of a Stakeholder Group for "Non-Commercial Users," possibly

including an Individuals Constituency, overlap with the interests represented by the

At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and its supporting structures?

 

There is already substantial overlap between the interests represented by ALAC and NCUC. 

 

Originally, the At Large was created to represent unaffiliated individuals. After the "reforms" of 2002, when the At Large membership became the At Large Advisory Committee, the concept of At Large was suddenly based on "At Large Structures" (ALSs). "At large structure" is just a fancy name for a noncommercial organization. The combination of an ALAC based on ALSs and an NCUC based on noncommercial organizations is a source of perpetual confusion among civil society actors who are considering participation in ICANN, and a source of discoordination within ICANN. This confusion is compounded by the fact that many people, apparently including the Board Governance Committee, still think that ALAC represents unaffiliated individuals, which it does only imperfectly because of its reliance on ALSs.

 

The proper way to deal with ALAC-NCUC overlap is simply to establish a procedure by which eligible and recognized ALSs automatically become members of NCUC upon application. 

 

As for individuals, "commercial" and "noncommercial" is a distinction that only applies to organizations or to specific activities, not to natural persons who register domain names. An individual registrant may use the same domain for commercial and noncommercial purposes. There is no natural congruence of interest or outlook between "individuals" and "noncommercial organizations."

 

One way to do individual participation correctly is to go the whole way: abolish constituencies and make the entire GNSO based on individual participation. Individual participation and representation, as for example embodied in IETF working groups, simply does not mesh with categorized constituency structures. If one group participates in GNSO as "individuals," then everyone should participate as "individuals." You cannot legitimately combine the two, because everyone qualifies as an individual and there is therefore a danger of double representation or strategic gaming of the combination. The value of a constituency structure is that it balances and distributes power, avoiding the inevitably tendency of those with strong economic interests in policy to be overrepresented. 

 

Another, less radical way to deal with this problem is to narrow down the conception of an individuals' constituency to mean "individuals who register domain names as individuals, and not for incorporated organizations." If such a constituency is created, anyone who joins it should not be eligible for membership in the other constituencies. This would likely become a domainer's and small business constituency, and could also accommodate domain name holding individuals motivated by political or social goals.

 

* Is there a reason to consider combining registrar and registry interests in the same

Stakeholder Group?

 

It should be considered, yes. But because current contractual arrangements require registries to sell domain names through registrars, the two industry segments would inevitably split into two camps on most issues pertaining to registry-registrar relations. They would also likely join together as they now do on user-supplier issues. However, some registrars may move into the registry market as new TLD opportunities open up. 

 

* What should be the extent of coordination among constituencies within each

Stakeholder Group?

 

As noted above, we oppose making a structural change that adds a new layer to GNSO representation. We don't need two layers, we just need one.

 

* What would be the roles and responsibilities of these new Stakeholder Groups? What

would be their relationship with the Council?

 

See immediately preceding answer

 

* Are there specific new constituencies that would enhance the inclusiveness and

effectives of the GNSO? For example, would the creation of an Individuals

Constituency and/or a Domainers Constituency, as some have suggested, be useful?

 

Current representational structures do not easily accommodate an individual who has registered domain names on their own behalf and cares about ICANN and Internet policy as they affect domain names. There is a case for such a constituency. In general, however, proliferation of formal constituencies has the potential to make representation more artificial and less balanced. Groups can always organize coalitions across constituencies. 

 

* Has the amount of payment been a barrier to entry for all constituencies, or for just

some constituencies? Has it hindered business entities from joining?

 

NCUC fees are reasonable ($50 for two years) and it waives membership fees for poor or developing country applicants, after examining their means. No organization that truly wants to join would be unable to join. Requiring payment when feasible, however, has the benefit of eliminating attempts to "stack the deck" or reducing undue influence from organizations and people who don't take the process or the constituency seriously, but simply want to exert influence without any corresponding responsibility.

 

Some of the business constituencies have substantially higher fees than ours. We have heard anecdotal evidence that this may be a deterrent but have not studied the problem systematically enough to render a firm opinion.

 

* How much would the cost have to be reduced (e.g., by administrative support from

ICANN) in order to encourage more entities from developing countries to participate?

 

The most expensive aspect of participation in ICANN is time; i.e., the opportunity costs of not working on other things in order to do the many things effective participation in ICANN requires, such as reading long documents, participating in weekly two-hour teleconferences, conferring with other members, and responding to tons of email. Few organizations or individuals can afford to do this; they have other jobs and commitments. The second most expensive aspect is the travel and lodging required to attend face to face meetings. Compared to these, membership fees are trivial at least in NCUC's case. We hope no one in ICANN is operating under the illusion that participation in ICANN processes will be significantly affected by subsidizing constituency membership fees. And the costs of time devoted cannot be subsidized unless ICANN effectively pays people to participate.

 

* Would the Stakeholder Groups need funding? If so, would it be provided by the

constituencies or ICANN?

 

Again, we oppose adding a new layer of bureaucracy to GNSO. But one aspect of a stakeholder group or constituency that does need ICANN funding are the travel and lodging expenses required for Council members to ICANN meetings. This is a limited, affordable but vital way in which ICANN can facilitate real participation. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20070620/ac747e82/attachment.html>