RE: [council] Re: Individuals' Constituency -- The way forward

[Grant Forsyth <grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz>]

Danny
Many of the issues that are raised by the consideration of an "individuals'
constituency" within the DNSO are just the ones currently being considered
by the ALSC - who are "individuals", how should they be "organised" in order
to have access and legitimacy, etc
I think the work of the ALSC has been extensive and needs to be given our
consideration such that it can progress and conclude with a resulting
outcome.
I think to take up additional considerations at this time which are so
closely aligned to the ALSC work, would be wasteful, distracting to
implementing the eventual results of the ALSC and in the end not serving the
interests of individuals or the DNSO.
My view is not motivated by wishing to delay, but rather wanting to
facilitate some real outcomes within ICANN and in particular with
consideration of the part of individuals within ICANN.
Regards


Grant Forsyth
Manager Industry & Regulatory Affairs
CLEAR Communications Ltd
Cnr Taharoto & Northcote Roads
Private Bag 92143
AUCKLAND
ph +64 9 912 5759
fx + 64 9 912 4077
Mb 021 952 007


-----Original Message-----
From: Antonio Harris [mailto:harris@cabase.org.ar]
Sent: Saturday, 06 October, 2001 4:12 a.m.
To: DannyYounger@cs.com; council@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [council] Re: Individuals' Constituency -- The way forward


Danny,

Whereas some aspects of the ALSC proposal need
to be evaluated carefully, I
actually I think the idea the ALSC put forward to consider
individual domain name holders as the natural at-large
membership is an excellent one, in fact I was one of those
promoting this idea from the floor. I dont see how this can
"disenfranchise major segments of the worldwide user
community that do not hold domain names". The ALSC
pointed to a clear, easy and cost effective method of
outreach to potential at large members, who, as I see
it, should be people with an interest in domain names.
Non domain-name holders should not be excluded,but
ICANN should not be expected to spend millions of
dollars in seducing them to become members and then
fund expensive voting procedures for them.

Again, I'm sorry but the length of a report doesnt tell me
it is a better one, it rather suggests that a more complicated
proposal is being formulated.

I note your clarification that you are talking of an "individuals"
constituency and not an IDNH one. This seems reasonable,
and here the question arises: who do they include ? Are
they e-mail users, people with pop mail dial up accounts ?
people who dont  have a PC but use webmail in a
cybercafe ?  domain name holders? others ?

It is likely that many of these individuals belong to the
academic environment, (Non Commercial constituency
represents them ?), many to the business and commerce
environment, as employees, professionals, merchants
(BC and IP constituencies represent them ?) So who
are we left with, what sector of the community with
sufficient interest in ICANN procedures would nourish
the individuals constituency?

Tony Harris




----- Mensaje original -----
De: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
Para: <council@dnso.org>
CC: <harris@cabase.org.ar>
Enviado: Viernes 5 de Octubre de 2001 00:39
Asunto: [council] Re: Individuals' Constituency -- The way forward


> Tony Harris writes:  Whereas I have no objection to the idea of individual
> name holders being adequately represented in the ICANN structure (I happen
to
> be one myself), my question is: If an IDNH
> constituency is implemented, who will the proposed At Large SO be
> representing ?
>
> Dear Tony,
>
> The At-Large Study Committee's preliminary draft recommendation proposed a
> definition for "At-Large member" as "individual domain name holder".  This
> recommendation/definition has met with a barrage of appropriate criticism
as
> it effectively serves to disenfranchise major segments of the worldwide
user
> community that do not hold domain names.
>
> Preliminary recommendations are often no more than trial balloons, and we
> should not be tempted to accept such proposals without a thorough review.
> The ALSC report itself was no more than 22 pages in length with minimal
> analysis offered and even less justification for several key
recommendations,
> while the NAIS documents, by way of a contrasting example, exceeded more
than
> 250 pages and  thoroughly supported the conclusions reached therein.
>
> The proposal to establish the At-Large as an SO instead of as a membership
> body under Article II of the Bylaws is but one of many questionable
> recommendations, as is the recommendation to abrogate the founding compact
> that ICANN made with the US government and the Internet community (and to
> thereby elect less than the requisite number of At-Large Directors
promised).
>
>
> What we need to be asking ourselves is... while there is a need for better
> representation of individuals now at this very moment within the DNSO, can
we
> justify an ongoing effort to deny them their participatory rights while we
> debate theoretical constructs for an At-Large which may not even come into
> existence within the next calendar year?
>
> Yes, there is a possibility of overlap in the future.  So what?  Is that
> potentially any worse than the overlap that we currently have between the
> Business Constituency and the Intellectual Property Constituency (to use
but
> one example out of many)?  In the future, there might not even be a DNSO
(as
> the provider/ developer/user construct would seem to dictate).  That
should
> not dissuade us from doing what is clearly warranted now.
>
> All the Board has asked for is a "reasonable proposal".  It is reasonable
to
> state that the NC believes that Individuals should be accorded a
constituency
> within the DNSO -- note that I did not state individual domain name
holders
> (as only a small proportion of individual users hold domain names).
>
> This is an action that we can take now that will end a long-festering
> problem.
>
> Best regards,
> Danny
>
> PS.  I have just completed a written analysis of all public comments
posted
> to the ALSC forum  -- the document is about 90 pages long, but fairly
quick
> reading.  Should anyone be interested in a copy, please feel free to
forward
> me a note.
>