At 10:38 AM 6/22/99 , Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>What exactly is the specific point of the Paris Draft that is so different
>in the current DNSO to make you switch from a supporter of the process (I
>assume that if the Paris Draft would have been accepted as the basis of the
>DNSO by ICANN, you would have supported it) to an unconditional opponent
>"tout-court" of ICANN.
Hi Roberto,
The Paris Draft allowed for constituencies
to self-form upon the attainment of 5% of
the General Membership (which was open to all
Domain Name stakeholders). In addition, it
restricted these members to ONE constituency
of *their* choice.
Without these protections, and without ICANN
making sure that the constituency formation
process remained fair, you have gaming like:
- The ICANN Board initially approving
seven constituencies, six of which are
commercial in nature.
- The ICANN Board only recognizing six
constituencies (all commercial), then
asking them to approve the WIPO report.
- Organizations like MCI being over
represented in the Names Council.
- Etc, etc, etc.
But, this gaming comes as no surprise, as
it has always been a concern. FYI:
At 01:42 PM 2/15/99 , Jay Fenello wrote:
>The result of forcing all "members" into non-exclusive
>constituencies guarantees that minority positions will
>*NEVER* have a voice in the process. It is a form of
>gerrymandering where minorities are forced into categories
>where they will always remain minorities.
>
>The truth of the matter is you can call your Names
>Council whatever you want -- it is an all powerful
>committee that can make decisions independent of the
>wishes of Domain Name stakeholders. When you combine
>its power with the dilution of minority interests as
>described above, you have an organization that is
>captured from the get-go.
At 11:49 AM 3/16/99 , Jay Fenello wrote:
>One of the decisions of the ICANN Board was to approve
>a DNSO that featured overlapping constituencies. This
>creates a problem common to all constituencies, namely,
>where do we draw the lines.
>
>My concern is that certain constituencies are
>attempting to form in private, behind closed
>doors. This could easily result in a biased
>process, one that excludes legitimately
>interested parties.
>
>I hereby request that the ICANN Board clearly
>indicate that this is not acceptable, and that
>any constituency wishing to be recognized by
>ICANN must form via an open process.
At 12:32 AM 4/27/99 , Jay Fenello wrote:
>As I pointed out at the DNSO meeting and your
>press conference in Singapore, allowing entities
>to participate in multiple constituencies is
>extremely disadvantageous to minority stakeholders.
>
>What could have been one minority constituency
>among seven, is now seven constituencies for the
>majority, and NO VOICE for minorities.
>
>If we are lucky, we will garner enough support
>to have marginal representation in a few
>constituencies. More than likely, we will be
>so diffused, that the minority positions will
>be steamrollered in a most offensive way.
As predicted, we've been steamrollered
in a most offensive way :-(
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.� 404-943-0524
-----------------------------------------------
What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
