Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 11:41:30AM -0400, Bret Fausett wrote:
>> ICANN's press release read:
>> >The constituencies, which will elect the
>> >Names Council to act as the governing body of the Domain Name Supporting
>> >Organisation (DNSO), are the core of the DNSO.
>>
>> For the record, I think a better way of understanding the DNSO is to
>> place the General Assembly at its "core."
>
>Yes. And this misunderstanding is behind the misguided idea of an
>"Individual Constituency", as well.
>
The Paris Draft, which I supported, places the General Assembly at the
heart and the top of the DNSO.
When ICANN came with *its* structure in Singapore, and came with 6
constituencies that do not care for DN owners's interests and one
non-commercial one that is for organizations and thus a recipe for on-going
trench warfare, the creation of an Individual DN owners constituency was
seen as necessary to look after typical interests of Individual DN owners,
1. not to be held hostage by registries and registrars
2. not to be bullied by deep pocketed corporations that may covet their DN
3. not to be subjected to a bureaucracy that does not understand that
Individuals can be both commercial and non-commercial
4. to have at least *one* constituency where concerns of free speech can
find a home.
Misguided? A hundred individuals have quickly gathered to say otherwise.
>> While the constituencies collectively may comprise a substantial
>> percentage of the General Assembly, there are many unaffiliated
>> individuals and groups that may only find a place to participate in the
>> General Assembly.
>
>Indeed. There is an unavoidable "catch all" character to individual
>domain name holders -- they cross all categories, and as such it is
>hard to imagine a constituency that meaningfully deals with that
>diversity.
The constituency deals not with the diversity, but with the commonality.
The diversity is what enriches it.
On the other hand, there are many individuals who may
>not have a personally registered domain who are very interested in
>domain name issues -- do we need a constituency for them, as well?
>
If you know them, show them to me , Kent.
Mostly they are people who are interested in getting a DN.
In other words, stateholders or potential stakeholders.
If not, the at large representation has been created for "people who are
interested in DN issues".
They can even elect 9 Board Members.
>The inspiration for the General Assembly was the IETF -- where
>*any interested individual* can participate. People are hung up on
>representation in the Names Council.
>
Because the general assembly has been subjected to the NC, in the new
structure.
>> Whether a substantive policy proposal should be adopted is measured by
>> the degree of consensus in the General Assembly. This is in keeping with
>> the bottom-up decision-making style that should characterize the DNSO.
>
>Yep.
O.K. then the DNSO bylaws need revisiting.
Did that "yep" represent all of CORE/PAB?POC? That would be a breakthrough.
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/
