"The initial list of constituencies and number of members of the Names Council is set forth below:
1. Commercial and business - 3
2. ISP and connectivity providers – 3
3. Non-commercial - 3
4. Registrars - 3
5. Registries - 3
6. Trademark and anti-counterfeiting interests - 3"
I see a good deal of business interests, educational and eleemosynary interests, and Web interests, but I don't see any place for the interests of single owners of a site or sites.That, to me, is the primary reason for ICANN in the first place, viz., to serve as a "marshalling umbrella" organization which will attempt--and I can appreciate how effortful the attempt must seem now--to focus, clarify and sound Web concerns of and for its primary users ("constituencies").
Why does this constituency gap concern me? I think it's not so much because I distrust ICANN although NSI has beaten that drum a while, but rather I wonder at the impression given around the world to governments and their minions/ministers who will point to ICANN's list of constituencies and say, "Look, there are no individual concerns being represented here. Why should our government be concerned about individual site representation?" Just more bucks for the monopolists, only these monopolists are in Taiwan, or Burundi or Kosovo and they receive scant attention when they low-ball individual rights. I can only wonder what groups like the Chambers of Commerce or the NRA would have to say about diminishing individual representation in the DNSO!
In fine, it seems to me that some kind of identifiable IDNO representation is necessary if only to assure millions of users like myself that ICANN does intend to canvass and represent all constituencies, NSI's selection of "an employee and two of its lawyers" as Mike Roberts said, notwithstanding. Perhaps that is the rub: the three names submitted; if so, then perhaps another set of names could be submitted; or, if not three, then one, non-conflicting name (God only knows where that would come from tho?!) In any event, your request about changing the by-laws seems to me to entirely side-step this really important question of IDNO. I hope you will address it more directly at your open August meeting.
Richard McNally <email@example.com>