Re: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Kent,
I understand that Dave and you opposed the vote about IDNO representation in
the Yokohama vote. Your post is therefore of great interest. I would like 
to go
through it?


1. The constituencies

First you say (I put your text in my order: you were responding, I am
analyzing. I suppose you will not mind).

 >Personally I have always been in favor of an "at-large" constituency,
 >which is open to anyone, rather than an individual domain name holders
 >constituency.  While people who just use domain names without registering
 >them don't have as much an obvious stake, they clearly do have a stake.
 >The claim that only domain name holders have a stake in domain names
 >is no more meaningful than saying that only home owners have a stake in
 >housing policy.]
 >Some time ago I put together a web site on this issue -- see
 >http://at-large.org.
 >> Others will remember the history better than I do, but I seem to recall we
 >> do not yet have a constituency for individuals because individuals have not
 >> yet "self-organized" to the satisfaction of the ICANN Board.
 >   That is true also.At 07:05 11/09/00, you wrote:

This is of real interest. I will take the comparison with the telephone
(which sometimes will be part of the Internet). Today DNSO is like
the yellow pages, the white page being missing. Two visions are opposed:

- yours saying all the people calling the Internet should be represented
- Joop's saying that the small/individual DN owners should be.

I personally feel that you are both right. Jamie correct me if I am
wrong, Joop is interested in people using the Domain Name system
(namely ICANN, NSI, TLDs, registrars, etc..) and Kent is interested in
consumers using the internet which also made by Joop's people.
So there is no opposition but complementarity.

Conclusion both IDNO and ALC should be set-up as constituency.
These two constituencies being to be introduced at the same
period and representing a significant number of person, most
probably share a lot of concerns. They should therefore help
each other to establish.


2. Acceptability of these constituencies

IMHO there is an on going misunderstanding about what ICANN
and therefore DNSO is. The ICANN is a small operation publishing
the master-root and the DNSO is a consulting body to document
the problem it might meet in his endeavor. Obviously Joop and you
want that the IDNO and the ALC do more and take decisions.

This is fine, but this mean that your organizations cannot be part
of the DNSO. However there should be constituency Members of
your organizations would be part of. GA accepted the concept of
an individual domain name owner constituency. If you formally
propose the GA an Internet consumer constituency I will second
it. I suppose it will be accepted.


3. Individuals consistency  IDNO / ALC

You pertinently say:
>I think there are *many* fundamental issues that have never even been
>discussed, much less resolved, regarding an individuals constituency:

The best I think would be to have a permanent WG on new constituency
creation. This might well be a way to reach consensus about
constituencies. If they turn out being more numerous and to cover all
the issues as they are uncovered, this may lead the GA to be a real
common place and answer the concerns of every one? If the
consistencies were to be mended or suppressed this WG would be
the ideal place to work out a good solution based on the acquired
experience.

>0) the constituency formation process itself;

This is obviously the first question to address for a WG on
Constituency Management.

>1) the relationship between an individual constituency and the
>atlarge membership;

There would certainly be common audiences. But - as long as
the DNSO is consultative and the @large part of the executive
there should not be problem.

>2) the relationship between an individual constituency and the ga;

Very important. The yellow page may be 10% of the telephone
owners and 5% of the telephone users. On the other hand
professionals and motivated people are not numerous among
the population. The WG should address that point.

>3) the relationship between an individual constituency and other 
>constituencies
>[is someone who is a representative of an organization in another
>constituency who owns a domain name excluded from membership in an
>individual constituency -- why or why not];

IMHO the people should be allowed to participate in as many
consistencies it qualifies for but to have only one vote at GA.
Again the DNSO role is to consult not to decide, it is about not
to waste competence. Being competent in one field does not prevent
to be competent in other fields.

>4) the problems of dealing with an individual membership [how do you
>authenticate, how do you deal with capture etc].

This is up to the WG to work this out. The same rules should
apply all through the DNSO. The ICANN failure at the PINs
should help to standardize ICANN wide solutions?



May be, Joop or other see other important points to add to this
list which would apply both to IDNO and ALC. I see one myself
which is are language, formation and glossary. Uniting small owners
and consumers will unit people not necessarily having a basic
international English or an in deep vision of the network or a rather
different vision of the nets (If I judge by my own grown daughters
and my wife).

Jefsey


--
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