Re: [ICANN-EU] Answer to Joop Teernstra (2)

["Griffini Giorgio" <grigio@mediapoint.it>]

Answering me you wrote:

> >Personally speaking, being an individual, I'm also currently eligible for
> taking 
> >part of such constituency but I have to remember all of us that a director 
> >(DNSO or @Large elected) should have no committment to any group and 
> >should serve ICANN corporation interests. In my view @Large directors 
> >should take decisions based on their background and knowledge of their 
> >regional culture and views for any kind issues which may vary between non-
> >profit,governmental,business and also individuals issues. But cannot/should 
> >not be the voice of only just one group.
> >
> Fair enough. But the ICANN Board members are the ones deciding collectively
> on the admittance of new constituencies in the DNSO.
> All we ask is your support for such a decision in the Board meeting that
> decides that. In the interest of ICANN itself.
> After that , the Individual Domain Name holders will have their own voice
> in the DNSO and no ICANN directors are expected to be a voice for that group.
> 
The real problem is not having me giving you such support but having me 
physically able to give it in the BoD  :-)
You are talking to a candidate that, being an outsider, has very few chances 
to get elected (even placed in the final ballot) so please, in your interest, do 
not make too much planning on this.

> 
> >2. What are you proposing to do about  further balancing the DNSO's 
> >representativeness? 
> >
> >Actually,in addition to sub-optimal representation of individuals, there
> is also 
> >the miss of not having regional constituency because it is supposed that 
> >such representativity will come from @Large membership. 
> 
> This is not quite so, as all DNSO constituencies have to meet the
> regionality requirements for their selection of names Council candidates.
> This has actually given problems to several of them (not enough qualified
> candidates from  each region) and they have asked for dispensation of these
> rules.
> 
I think that regionality requirements will be less an issue if there will be  
'direct' regional voices. 

> The point of regional representation that you raise is a valid one for debate.
> Are we happy with the way ICANN has carved up the world?
> Does Israel really belong in asia/pacific?
> Does Europe, once it is represented as a region (including the caucasian
> republics?), need to address internal regionalism (and representation) as
> well? Where does it end?
> 

I may elaborate few different schemes and all of them relies on delegation.
I would favor ones that allows each 'area/country' choose directly the 'region'  
to where it feels most to belong to. I think it will lower the risk of  
gerrymandering you were talking about and it is even simple to do,
if there is the will.

> >If such body must be built I think it is better to build it into the DNSO
> (after 
> >all we are talking about the 'core' business of ICANN: domain names) by 
> >allowing for regional constituency there and consistently extend the number 
> >of directors the DNSO may elect. 
> >
> This would mean a complete rewrite of the rules for the DNSO. Perhaps a
> welcome exercise, as it would allow for a revision of the powerless GA.
> But I am afraid that regional constituencies are a can of worms.
> The final decision (by the ICANN Board) on the geographical boundaries will
> allow for a process of gerrymandering even worse than what we have now.
> Too much energy will go into this.
> The internet is about the absence of boundaries, isn't it?  
> 
Internet is about absence of boundaries but it is very unpratical to blindly 
enforce this view when boundaries actually exists. We may take for example 
the major issue about domain names and IP (Intell. Prop.). We are dealing 
with a whole bunch of different laws, rules, jurisditions, public mood and so 
on and it is nearly impossible nor fair to have a single consistent answer for 
all of them.
I think that solutions on issues on the net should be just secondary effects of 
real life solutions to real life issues which should be addressed first.
I have no fear about rewriting rules if they show to be unfair or not appropriate
and sincerely speaking I see that the gap between @large director and 
member who elect them is too wide and that some intermediate body is 
missing. Actually it is more or less like having hands directly attached to 
shoulders...you can save on material for shirts... but it will be very difficult to 
even do ordinary things like drinking a glass of water. 

> 
> >3. What specific checks do you propose on the powers of the Names 
> >Council?
> >
> >I would likely favor shorter terms for member of NC (1 year with a non-
> >reeligibility clause of 1 year) in order to allow to rotate
> responsabilities in a 
> >more dynamic way. Anyway, I think that some additional more deep 
> >adjustment to overall structure should be done if regional constituencies
> are 
> >being taken inside DNSO.
> >
> But what good would regional constituencies do, if they are still IP,
> registrar and registry interests, heavily balanced against the interests of
> Individual DN owners?
> 
It depends on how each specific interest group has influence in their 
respective region. This is valid for interest other than 'Individuals' ones as well.
This way there will be two kind voices to average for the same interest group: 
the affermative lobbying one (the relevant constituency) and the same kind 
voices into each region with its relative (to the region) weight.
.
Best regards
Giorgio Griffini