RE: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)

["Alf Hansen" <Alf.Hansen@uninett.no>]

Harald et al,

You are pointing at a big problem, but I am not sure if the constituencies
themselves are the real problem.

I think we could change a lot if we focused on "DNSO", Domain Name Support
Organization", as one common group of people (like At-Large which also is a
large group of people with different interests).

This large group of people in DNSO have one thing in common: They are
interested in Domain Names and the development of the Domain Name structure
in the Internet. The "constituency tags" should be used just to indicate the
profile of each DNSO member. The constituencies should not fight each other,
but instead use its forces to pull in the same direction: A stable ICANN as
a privat bottom-up organization with equal and fair competition conditions
for everyone.

The gTLDs and the ccTLDs have much in common Example: A stable root server
structure operated under a common set of contract(s). The non-commercial
label can be put on people with both gTLD, ccTLD and IP profiles. The IP
people are working both for gTLDs and ccTLDs because we are all interested
in effective DRPs. I assume also the non-commercial people are interested in
effective DRPs. The "commercial and business" label can be put on any of us.
We are all dependant in ISPs.

Joke: And we have to live with the Registrars.... (I did not mean that...)

In the NC we have to make sure that all these interests and profiles are
duly represented, but in my opinion we should not have pure ccTLD- , gTLD,
Registrar- etc. -groups. We have all more that one lable, and we should work
together in the DNSO.

Perhaps we could structure the discussions in "topics" and the chairs should
make sure that vioces from all constituency-intersts were heard for each
topic. The conclusion on the "topic" could then be presented by the Name
Council as as a good advice to the ICANN Board, taking the views from all
the constituencies into account.


I can "hear" already people shaking their heads becase this is a naive
standpoint, but I have seen it before: Multiculture environments can really
work together, if they want to and if they have a common goal.

The problem with the current DNSO is that the people DO NOT HAVE A COMMON
GOAL. There are too many agendas.

Best regards,
Alf Hansen



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Jean-Michel Becar
> Sent: 30. august 2000 16:39
> To: 'Harald Alvestrand'; roberto.gaetano@voila.fr; ga@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)
>
>
> As I fully agree with you, the constituencies are the heart of the problem
> but how to change this?
>
> If my memory is not too bad, the constituency model was hardly discussed
> during the DNSO creation process - and this was the major issue. And today
> how to reach consensus on the decrease of the number of constituencies?
>
> I don't think that IP people or others will accept to merge with another
> constituency... and even if we succeed some group of people will create
> sub-constituencies and we will return at the beginning.
>
> Now to try to remove the constituency model will be also a hard
> task and it
> will habe a deep impact on the Names Council. THis is a tricky probem.
>
> An intermediate model could be to have only 3 constituencies:
> - Registries (ccTLDs, and gTLDs),
> - Registrars
> - Users (Trademark and intellectual property, Commercial and Business
> entities, ISPs and connectivity providers ,Non-commercial domain name
> holders )
>
> and this model will give an aswer to the individual domain name holders as
> they can be integrated with the users.
>
> But frankly I don 't see how to manage to get rid of the actual situation.
>
> Regards,
> Jean-Michel Becar
> Project Manager
> www.etsi.org
> tel: + 33 4 92 94 43 15
> fax: +33 4 92 38 52 15
> gm: +33 6 82 80 19 31
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:Harald@Alvestrand.no]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 9:40 AM
> To: roberto.gaetano@voila.fr; ga@dnso.org
> Subject: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)
>
>
> To the point of the review comittee deliberations that says:
>
> >-  Does the current constituency division minimize the effectiveness
> >     of the DNSO and NC?
>
> Just for the record, I think that the constituency structure of
> the DNSO is
> a fundamental reason for the DNSO's problems.
>
> The constituency structure has led to:
>
> - Polarization, as those who are in the DNSO to represent a constituency
> feel obliged to serve that constituency's interests whether that makes
> sense in a global context or not
>
> - Underrepresentation, since many interested voices have trouble fitting
> into one or another of the constituencies
>
> - Overrepresentation, since many interested voices (Business and
> IP are the
> most obvious) find themselves natural parts of several constituencies
>
> - Misrepresentation, since the selection of a few people to act as
> spokesmen for a constituency obscures the sometimes significant
> differences
> of opinion within a constituency
>
> I believe part of the problems the DNSO has had in reaching
> anything like a
> consensus position on *anything* is rooted in the constituency structure.
> (It is also rooted in the presence of a number of very loud voices that
> should, on the basis of democratic process, be heard, but where
> the owners
> of the voices have neither the inclination nor the temperament to
> reach for
> consensus. Reaching consensus in a loud environment will always be hard.)
>
> The constituency structure is a failure and should be abandoned.
>
>               Harald
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html