At 06:37 25/09/00 -0400, Larry Lessig wrote: >There is a difficult line to draw here. On the one hand, I agree with Karl >and others that the mix of constituencies is skewed. I also question the >need for an "intellectual property" constituency (if that, why not a >consumer protection constituency, or a child protection constituency). > Hello Larry, Thanks for taking this tricky issue up. I am glad you agree that something needs to be done about it. Obviously, the "constituencies" that we have now reflect largely the demands of the powerful lobbies of today. Those that are not so visible in the DNSO, like the most powerful of all, the Telco's, have gotten their interim Board seats anyway. The lobbies of tomorrow will have to fight for admittance. This is in itself not wrong as long as the door is not jammed. In countries with low thresholds for party formation (such as Israel or the Netherlands) the issues of the day can translate themselves into "constituency" (party) formation. When the issues are threshed out, the parties linger on or disappear. Some parties are the direct result of a group of stakeholders feeling threatened. >On the other hand, I do not consider SO's to be the simple pawns of ICANN. They are not pawns, they are policy proposers. Their definition is laid down in the ICANN bylaws. The Bylaws give the ICANN Board the power to admit new "constituencies" or deny them entry. >The original idea of SO's was that they would be relatively autonomous, the >way states are relatively autonomous in the US constitutional structure. If >a SO does not adequately serve the function ICANN envisions, then ICANN >should select (or encourage the formation of) a different SO. But it should >not regulate a SO as if it were some second level mail room clerk. > The other SO's are not in discussion here. It is the DNSO that is in the spotlight for the clear reason that there is a group, the DN holders *as such*, that feels strongly that it must be represented there and it is being kept out so that it can be quietly subjected to regulation. An autonomous DNSO would not solve this problem. The existing lobbies (as represented on the NC) could simply "democratically" agree to continue to keep the Individual DN holders out. Their Task Force isn't going anywhere. Never mind the powerless GA. It is for this reason that a higher auththority, the Board, for which you are standing as a candidate, must do its duty in accordance with its Bylaws. If you feel that these Bylaws ought to be changed on this particular point please give us your proposed change and solid reasoning. ** P.S. Last time I looked, you scored 13 against 3 for Sondow in the poll on www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/ :-) --Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- the Cyberspace Association and the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners http://www.idno.org
