Re: [council] For the April 10 teleconference

[kstubbs@digitel.net (Digitel - Ken Stubbs)]

i cant agree with you here  milton.

we already have a GTLD constituancy which was previously approved by the
ICANN board and has a working charter. It is not for you to mandate to that
constituancy membership & o-perational guidelines just as it is not for you
to mandate or impose guidelines on the CCTLD's or business constituancy.

ken stubbs

----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>
To: <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 1:18 AM
Subject: [council] For the April 10 teleconference


> Bringing the DNSO constituency structure up to date:
> Preliminary notes
>
> Principles and issues:
>
> 1. A gTLD constituency should represent prospective registries as well as
incumbent registries. It is unfair and inconsistent with competition policy
norms to allow those who have been granted TLD resources to rule on policies
regarding who shall get them in the future. I also note that a registrar
constituency was created and seated before any registrars had been
accredited by ICANN. A simple membership criterion would be to extend
membership to any organization that confrormed with ICANN's application
process (past and future) and paid its application fee.
>
> 2. We should create an individual domain name holders' constituency on the
same timetable as the new gTLD constituency. The DNSO review lends support
to that objective. The addition of 2 seats for gTLDs alone would make the NC
as a whole even more slanted toward business interests than it is now,
especially given the significant amount of overlap between registrars and
registries.
>
> Objectives and timetables:
>
> 1. Rough draft charter(s) should be prepared in time to be discussed at
the Stockholm meeting.
>
> 2. An open meeting of prospective constituency members (IDNO and gTLD)
should be held at the Stockholm meeting, to discuss the draft(s).
>
> 3. The Names Council should be prepared to review the rough drafts and
offer some guidance at Stockholm, but not make any definitive
pronouncements. If there are competing drafts we should allow (fixed
duration) testimony from advocates before the NC session.
>
> 4. Consensus charters should be ready for final approval at the October
Names Council teleconference.
>
> 5. The newly chartered gTLD and individual name holder constituencies,
with a full complement of 3 positions, should be seated at the November 2001
ICANN annal meeting.
>