On Sun, Jan 10, 1999 at 04:10:50PM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> At 17:31 9/01/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> > Joop proposed:
> >> 2. The Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO) shall be composed of any
> >> individual, firm, association, corporation or other entity who is the
> >> holder of a second level domain (SLD) in any top level domain (TLD)or of a
> >> third level domain under any second level controlled by a TLD (Hereinafter
> >> "Domain Name Holder").
> >
> >This cannot be. You can say that any such person can be *eligible*
> >to be a member, but you can't automatically make them a member
> >whether they want to be or not. The DNSO *and it's membership* can
> >be sued, remember. Legally you simply cannot make someone a member
> >of an organization they don't want to be a member of -- and I
> >certainly can imagine that there could be domain holders who don't
> >want to be members of DNSO.
> >
> Kent and all, especially DNSO.net
>
> It says *any*, not *every* individual, etc.
> To me this means eligibility, a right to join, not automated compulsion.
> Did you seriously think I meant otherwise?
> Feel free to make the language still less ambiguous.
> May I take your comments as supportive of the idea, though? Or are you
> still firmly wedded to the caste system of constituencies?
The two issues are completely othorgonal.
In the current draft, *any* entity can become a member of the DNSO,
whether they have a domain name or not, as long as they can
demonstrate a legal identity. That would be a natural person,
corporation, or any other legally constituted entity. They are
required to pay a basic fee, constrained to be low (something
between $10-$100/year).
Members can elect to become members of constituencies, if they meet
the requirements of membership in the constituency, which may
involve more money as well as other criteria -- for example, to be
in the "registry" constituency you have to be a registry.
With a completely flat membership model you have a "tyranny of the
majority" problem, where the majority abuses the rights of a
minority. In the US constitution this is dealt with with the "Bill
of Rights" -- a statement of rights that the majority simply cannot
abridge. [At the Monterrey meeting I presented a short paper on a
"Bill of Rights" model for dealing with the "Tyranny of the majority
problem". It wasn't adopted. I think the reason is the difficulty
of getting agreement on what "rights" are involved.
A constituency model is another way to get around the "Tyranny of
the Majority" problem -- A minority (such as registries) get a
guaranteed spot at the table that cannot be voted away by the
majority. This is by no means a perfect solution -- there is no
perfect solution.
The other side of the coin is, of course, the "Tyranny of the
Minority". This is where a small minority is able to block needed
change. If you have a diversity of constituencies, this is a
greater danger than the danger that a single constituency will take
over the Names Council.
> >> 3. The Names Council shall ensure that it will guard the rights of the
> >> Domain Name holders and registrants by advising ICANN on such policies that
> >> will mandate that any delegated Registrar or
> >> Registering entity adopts procedures guaranteeing fair hearings and due
> >> process in its Articles, Bylaws or contract documents with second or third
> >> level registrants.
> >>
>
> And how do you feel about this last proposed item? Too hot for the DNSO?
> Unrealistic in view of autonomous dictatorial ccTLD's that even ICANN can't
> control?
> Or worth taking on board?
I think it is 1) unnecessary; 2) probably unenforcable, both in the
context of organizational bylaws, and in the context of
registrars/registries; and 3) it clouds authority lines -- what if the
membership disagrees with this?
It would be exactly equivalent to putting in the bylaws a clause that
states that the NC will put forth policies that implement the WIPO
recommendations.
--
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
