Blocking International DNS
Eric Brunner-Williams
brunner at nic-naa.net
Thu Dec 2 12:53:49 UTC 2010
> Also while different segments may have some level of participation
> (including folks that claim they represent the users which they do
> not) by design ICANN is a membership less organization so the multi
> stake holder model is a lie and the bottom up process when the bottom
> does not have the same level of resources to participate as some of
> the big corp/lobby groups, ends being a fiasco.
the dissolution of the protocol supporting organization in december
2002 removed it as an entity contributing voting seats to the icann
board. the advisory role survived in the technical liaison group, now
the target of a proposal that could eliminate it too as a entity
contributing non-voting seats to the icann board [1].
and as i've pointed out previously, no later than icann-10, in
montavideo, no isp, nsp, asp, ... operational interests were present
in the "internet service provider constituency", only the trademark
interests of the participating operators, e.g., verizon.
some responsibility for the non-effectiveness, even of the
public-private-multi-stakeholder-bottom-up-consensus-driven model
chosen for the new entity, goes to the industry actors which either
withdrew their participation, or limited their participation to
non-operational, non-technical participation.
btw, i spent quite a bit of my time with the berkman center
researchers working on accountability and transparency on just the
issue of how users can be represented and i think it a hard problem.
-e
[1] http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#tlg-review-2010
More information about the NANOG
mailing list