[At-Large] R: IGO names: is this worth war?
evan at telly.org
Sun Nov 6 19:57:39 UTC 2016
On 6 November 2016 at 19:34, Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com> wrote:
> > The GNSO -- domain buyers and sellers divorced from the realities of the
> > rest of the world
> I really don't know why you keep repeating that mantra. You know
> just as well as I that the GNSO is not just "domain buyers and sellers".
> The non-contracted parties house, half of GNSO, consists of
> people who *don't* represent domain business.
It's not a mantra, it's absolute truth.
The CPH is the sellers of domains.
The NCPH is the buyers.
There is no other house representing those who are neither buyers nor
sellers yet are still affected by the DNS ... like law enforcement and IGOs
and consumer groups and aboriginal name holders and victims of domain abuse.
Whether you agree or not, the ICANN bylaws are quite clear in specifying
the community home of non-domain-owning end-users: It's At-Large community,
conveniently and deliberately kept outside the GNSO. Governments are
likewise kept to the side as advisors.
The NCPH is not the domain industry, but is its marketplace and the sole
source of ICANN's revenue. It represents trademark holders, domainers, and
casual owners, You can't even join the NCSG without owning a domain (ref:
NCSG Charter, 184.108.40.206 for organizations, 220.127.116.11 for individuals).
While the existence of few NomCom people on GNSO (and a nonvoting ALAC
liaison) offer a mild attempt at outside balance, the bylaws make clear.
The GNSO, if a policy mandate achieves consensus between domain buyers and
sellers, can (and IMO frequently has) advance policy that goes against the
If you're neither domain buyer nor seller -- that is, most of the world --
you have no representation on GNSO. Feel free to disagree, but that is the
functional (and bylaw-defined) reality.
Yes, the conventional process failed, but we seem to disagree about
> the reasons for that failure. I seem to remember that the GNSO NPOC
> constituency was specifically created for the IGO's, but they lost
> interest as soon as they discovered that it was easier to ask the GAC
> and the ICANN board to help them instead.
And why was it easier? Because the rest of the GNSO wouldn't take their
Do you recall the lengthy, painful process to get the NPOC started in the
first place? Given the huge amount of effort expended to get it approved,
its creators had substantial investment in making NPOC work. Walking away
in frustration only happened after long futile efforts to be heard.
This is why the complaints of "why didn't they use our process?" are so
laughable. Their attempts to work within the system are well documented, as
was their treatment by the rest of the "community".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the At-Large