ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Comments on CSG charter emphasizing proposed IDNgTLD Constituency

  • To: gnso-stakeholder-charters@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Comments on CSG charter emphasizing proposed IDNgTLD Constituency
  • From: "S. Subbiah" <subbiah@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:36:44 -0700

(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.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy