RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus Current Thinking

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Milton,
 
Here is how we did it in our Domain Tasting statement dated 6 March:
 
gTLD Registries Constituency (RyC) Information:

 

·        Total # of eligible RyC Members: 15

·        Total # of RyC Members: 15

·        Total # of Active RyC Members: 15

 

Names of Members that participated in this process:

1.      Afilias Limited (.info)

2.      DotAsia Organisation (.asia)

3.      DotCooperation (.coop)

4.      Employ Media (.jobs)

5.      Fundació puntCAT (.cat)

6.      Global Name Registry (.name)

7.      mTLD Top Level Domain (.mobi)

8.      Museum Domain Management Association - MuseDoma (.museum)

9.      NeuStar (.biz)

10. Public Interest Registry (.org)

11. RegistryPro (.pro)

12. Societe Internationale de Telecommunication Aeronautiques - SITA (.aero)

13. Telnic (.tel)

14. Tralliance Corporation (.travel)

15. VeriSign (.com & .net)


I fully recognize that the first bullet (Total # of eligible Members) would be 
unreasonable for all of the user constituencies (or stakeholder groups) and in 
cases where the participating members is very large it may be cumbersome to 
list them all.  But I believe that information like this contributes to the 
transparency that I think all of us support.

 

Chuck

 
 


________________________________

        From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 1:06 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; Metalitz, Steven; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus Current Thinking 
        
        

        Chuck, if all you mean is that statements issuing from constituencies 
have to document who supports them within a constituency we don't have a 
disagreement.

         

        But it's not hard to get a representative sample of a population of 9 
registries. The problem is not even remotely comparable to determining whether 
an entire SG adequately represents some broad class of actor like "commercial 
entities."  I asked you to name a standard for doing that. You didn't. I 
suggest that you can't. I suggest that, short of a global electoral voting 
process, no one can. 

         

        
________________________________


        From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 8:23 AM
        To: Milton L Mueller; Metalitz, Steven; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus Current Thinking 

         

        The RyC has long supported efforts to document representativeness.  For 
quite awhile now we have provided data regarding the representativeness 
specific to particular statements we submit into GNSO processes.  Granted it is 
easier for us but that does not mean that other constituencies cannot provide 
similar data relative to their particular community.  This to me seems to be 
about the only way we can attempt to measure whether a group has been captured 
by a few individuals, a problem for which there was large concern before the 
DNSO was originally formed.

         

        Chuck

                 

                
________________________________


                From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
                Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 10:05 PM
                To: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
                Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus Current 
Thinking 

                 

                I view this as either controversial or meaningless. There are 
no objective criteria for "representativeness" and "breadth" when it comes to 
vast, global categories of users such as "commercial" or "noncommercial."  I 
challenge you to name one that isn't either something that all constituencies 
fail (e.g., one member from every country with Internet access) or so poorly 
defined that anyone could claim to meet it. 

                 

                Lacking truly objective criteria, the standards will simply 
become methods of harassing or attempting to de-legitimize constituencies or 
decisions. I can support objective criteria for qualifying as a stakeholder 
group (e.g., nondiscriminatory application of membership criteria, rules 
designed to prevent capture and preserve openness), but its absurd for any 
constituency or group to stand in judgment of the degree to which another SG is 
"representative" and "broad" enough. 

                 

                
________________________________


                From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
                 

                Another point that should be retained from previous proposals 
is that all stakeholder groups must meet objective criteria for 
representativeness and breadth.  As I recall this was non-controversial, but I 
am sure I will be corrected if my recollection is wrong!