I just scanned the CENTR document.
I find it quite unacceptable in the way it carves up the world into
pre-supposed "constituencies".
I also object its very obvious premise that somehow registries have a
bigger stake in things than those who need and use domain names -- It's
analogous to saying that airlines' obviously have a bigger stake in air
travel safety than those passengers who merely risk their lives.
I might also note that many of us fit into multiple "constituencies" --
I fit into at least 4 of 'em.
Once more, it is made clear to me that the only unit of interest should be
the individual human -- one person, one vote. Giving special recognition
(and votes) to any aggregation is an invitation to abuse and manipulation.
And the initial allocations of strength to these aggregations will endure
much longer than the estimates of those strengths have validity and will
thus pre-ordain many of the decisions, especially the critical
early/formative decisions.
(The draft doesn't seem to say -- unless I missed it -- that each
constituency gets an equal number of "representatives". Given the number
of business/tm and registry related constituencies, the game is pretty
well stacked against the little-guy domain holder.)
On another note -- some of the fundamental premises conflict with the
premises set forth in the "protocol" SO's organic documents -- that
document pretty much says that their SO *is* a funding source for ICANN,
is *separate* from ICANN, etc, etc. I somehow suspect that all SO's need
to have the same underlying relationship with ICANN, and that simularity
is clearly lacking.
--karl--
