FWIW, I agree with Karl that an individual domain holders' constituency is
needed - I just no longer believe that the IDNO effort as currently
structured is the appropriate vehicle for their representation. The
practical effect of Kent's proposal would be to give those who qualify for
an existing constituency two or more votes for the Names Council and
everyone else one. It does not take into account that individual domain
holders are generally the DNS stakeholders who have the fewest resources to
defend themselves, and consequently the most to lose. Their interests need
specific representation.
For the record, I consider myself an agnostic on the constituency question.
An at-large membership (or one limited to domain holders, which would be
more appropriate for the DNSO) would not be immune to capture. Depending on
how they are structured, constituencies can either prevent capture or
institutionalize it. Unfortunately, the present DNSO appears closer to the
latter case. This is another reason an IDH constituency is needed - it
would be a step toward restoring balance.
Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> And, as I've pointed out before, the notion that the IDNO is obviated
> by membership in the General Assembly is a false notion.
>
> Constituencies in the DNSO have significant powers that are different and
> distinct from the powers of the DNSO General Assembly.
>
> If one believes that membership in the DNSO General Assembly is a
> substitute for a Constituency membership, then I suggest that that person,
> to be consistant, must also advocate the abolition of the existing set of
> Constituencies and the names council.
>
> As is quite obvious to anyone who reads the ICANN by-laws, the DNSO
> General Assembly doesn't have the same powers as DNSO Constituencies.
>
> Membership in the DNSO General Assembly is not equivalent to membership in
> a DNSO constituency.
>
> It is the height of condescension, exclusion, and discrimination to
> suggest that ICANN relegate individual domain name owners to the General
> Assembly and prohibit individual domain name owners from having a
> constituency.
>
> It is similarly improper to consider the ICANN general assembly as a
> substitute for a individual domain name owner constituency in the DNSO.
> The powers of each role are quite different and not interchangeable.
>
> It is very sad that ICANN, after nearly 9 months of existance still
> has neither general membership nor any other structure in which
> individuals who are impacted by ICANN's decisions can have any meaningful
> voice.
>
> And yet substantive decisions are being made by ICANN and the DNSO.
>
> It is little wonder that support for ICANN is fading.
>
> --karl--
>
>
