[NCSG-Discuss] ICANN is bottom-up, except for when it is top-down. Fwd: Memorandum on the Trademark Clearinghouse ³Strawman Solution²

[Evan Leibovitch]

[ donning firefighter's suit ]

Allow, perhaps, a different perspective.

In its current ICANN state the so-called multi-stakeholder process is,
through the GNSO, simply a compact between domain sellers (ie, CPH) and
buyers (ie, NCPH). The rest of the world is left outside. It's "multi", but
it's exclusive and unequal.

While the ALAC certainly has its structural flaws, it does attempt to at
least offer a perspective of those who intend to never buy or sell a
domain, yet are heavily impacted by the decisions made inside the compact.
And yet neither end users nor governments have a full seat at the table.
The NCUC claims to speak for end users, but you can't join if you don't own
a domain -- and the vast VAST majority of people out there don't own a
domain.

Not all believes that everyone on earth ought to own a domain. As such, a
large segment of the population will be forever shut out of representation
of policy making, at least via the GNSO.

Sure, ALAC is occasionally invited to the table. But as was evidenced so
clearly in the Consumer Metrics WG, its opinions can be cavalierly tossed
aside if "real" GNSO members don't like the At-Large PoV. And when the
public interest efforts of the ALAC coincide with those of the NCUC (as
they did on issues such as Applicant Support), we're still in the minority
and heavily out-resourced.

So, while you may vociferously object to it, you may want to consider that
what is considered ham-handed Staff intervention by some might be
considered by others that finally someone -- even occasionally and
partially -- is asserting the interests of non-domain-owning end-users.
Fadi's early references to not just multi-stakeholderism, but
multi-EQUAL-stakeholderism, resonate within many in At-Large which has too
often seen the end-user PoV shut out of the compact's internal
deliberations.

As Alan Greenberg noted in his analysis of the staff action on the TMCH
Strawman proposals.

*Although the outcomes were not exactly as the ALAC advised (in terms of
what required policy development), all of the IP protections that ICANN
will be moving ahead with were supported by the ALAC, and the one
additional protection that the ALAC explicitly did not support will not be
implemented.*

Similarly, many in At-Large have no problem at all with the RAA unilateral
right to amend.

My main point is that not everyone is disgusted with the current path.
Calling the opposition unanimous, as some
have<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130316_icann_must_drop_request_for_unilateral_right_to_amend_agreements/>,
is inaccurate; however, such claims re-enforce the perception that the
end-user PoV is ignored. ICANN staff under Fadi's watch -- with all of its
flaws -- is now seen by a significant number, as part of a system of checks
and balances against what the domain buyer/seller compact wants to inflict
outside the ICANN bubble. Given the clear threat to the MSM as seen in WCIT
and elsewhere, arguably some form of this was inevitable.

The ALAC, through its R3 paper, attempted to envision an evolved set of
checks and balances. It may not be THE answer but the status quo may not be
sustainable if it isn't true MSM.

I think this issue is certainly worth discussing between the NCSG and ALAC
in Beijing.

If not, that's OK too.

-- 
Evan Leibovitch
Toronto Canada

Em: evan at telly dot org
Sk: evanleibovitch
Tw: el56
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130322/383ba87d/attachment-0001.html>