Comments on CSG charter emphasizing proposed IDNgTLD Constituency

["S. Subbiah" <subbiah@xxxxxxxxx>]

(1) In the interest of full transparency (after all this about reforms 
after a decade of obfuscation as pronounced by the London School of 
Economics report) one would think ALL voting or consensus call positions 
by each member should be detailed and publicly available - not just 
summary totals.
(2) In the same interest of transparency, there is no reason why 
detailed accounts should be withheld from public posting - all public 
listed corporations do so and besides ICANN is a non-profit.
(3) Section 4.2 states:

4.2 Membership shall also be open to any additional constituency 
recognized by ICANN’s Board under its by-laws, provided that such 
constituency, as determined by the unanimous consent of the signatories 
to this charter, is representative of commercial user interests which 
for the purposes of definition are distinct from and exclude registry and
The restriction "prospective registry, registrar, re-seller or domain 
name supplier interests" would preclude many members of the proposed 
IDNgTLDC group that have patiently participated (with little organized 
voice) while ICANN has delayed IDN by 11 years and presumably another 11 
years more. (Others will probably be precluded for other reasons like 
for example being tangentially government-related entities, never mind 
that the tentacles of government reach different lengths of society in 
different cultures/countries) This was exactly the same reasoning that 
was used some 3 years ago to keep IDN experts and people with years of 
IDN interests (far more than anyone on the eventual formal GNSO Working 
Group) out of the GNSO IDN policy process. The rationale, back then, 
"was wait until the new GNSO restructuring process within a year or so 
when you guys will get a voice". And in the meantime the usual ICANN 
story of delay leads us to nigh 3 years and waiting. Now the same old 
rules are re-stated to block participation. One line of reasoning based 
on the evidence is " just tell them they cannot join now because they 
will be becoming IDN registries,registrars, domain name sellers "soon" , 
meanwhile they should have no voice". Of course , meanwhile "no voice" 
means they cannot help push IDN agenda faster within ICANN and the 
"soon" can morph to an indefinite "later".
So on behalf of the proposed IDNgTLD constituency members and as its 
representative applicant, I would like to state categorically that the 
phrase "prospective registry, registrar, re-seller or other domain name 
supplier interests" from 4.2. (Since the best estimate based on periodic 
pronouncements vs. actual history at ICANN for actual ICANN IDN TLD 
deployments in any significant number to address global needs is close 
to "never". And being one of the co-inventors of modern IDN in 1997/8, 
one would think I personally might be a good judge of the delays at 
ICANN since 1999). If and when any Constituency member actually becomes 
eligible for another constituency/contracted party-house then either (a) 
they switch to that one and stay in only one or (b) we allow a party to 
participate in a set limit (say 3) constituencies amongst the houses.
Limiting membership by "prospectivity" alone would not be far different 
saying that no woman should be allowed to join a single's club because 
she once "thought of marrying a man".
S. Subbiah
Representative Applicant of the proposed IDNgTLD constituency.