Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>
> ICANN's "Domain Name Supporting Organization Formation Concepts"
> Statement contains a provision which reads: "Individual domain name
> holders should be able to participate in constituencies for which they
> qualify."
>
> Depending on the decisions ICANN makes in approving competing
> constituency applications, individual domain name holders may be present
> in *none* of the seven original constituencies. There is at least one
> proposal in each of the seven constituency areas (including, oddly
> enough, the Non-Commercial Domain Name Holder category) that adopts an
> organizations-centric model in which individuals either do not qualify or
> are placed in a minority position.
>
> I had the impression following the Singapore meeting that ICANN had sent
> a clear message that individual domain name holders were important
> stakeholders in this process and should be included in certain of the
> DNSO's constituency activities. I certainly didn't read "...for which
> they qualify" as an invitation to draft exclusive constituency proposals.
> Was I mistaken?
>
> -- Bret
>
> For reference, ICANN's "DNSO Formation Concepts" is at:
> http://www.icann.org/dnso-formation.html
>
> Links to current constituency drafts are at:
> http://www.icann.org/dnso/constituency_groups.html
>
This is am unfortunate but entirely predictable consequence of allowing the
initial constituencies to "self-organize" - easily the worst Paris Draft
provision to have found its way into the final DNSO structure. In the
absence of explicit, non-ambiguous eligibility guidelines, interest groups
are encouraged to attempt to define constituencies narrowly in order to
control outcomes. An example of this is the case of the NCDNHC, where one
prospective organizer is ignoring ICANN's clear mandate for individual
participation, while the other would redefine "non-commercial" in a way that
would disenfranchise many legitimate non-commercial organizations.
If the DNSO is to succeed, ICANN must take action to fix the constituency
formation process, preferably before the Berlin meeting. ICANN should
either inform any groups that are competing to organize the same
constituency that none will be recognized until a compromise is achieved, or
announce that ICANN itself will enact and implement eligibility rules for
each initial constituency. I would prefer the latter option, since the
former would likely lead to unresolvable deadlock in some cases, and might
encourage interests bent on disrupting the process to form sham organizing
efforts with the intent of preventing any constituencies from being
organized.
