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

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 13:28 14/09/00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>Joop,
>
>>
>>What makes *DN holders* a constituency is the fact that they are at the
>
>>receiving end of regulation by other interests. That's all. 
>>ICANN has recognized this only as far as non-commercial 
>*organizations*. 
>>A number of Individuals has seen the deficiency of this approach and 
>have
>>self-organized into the IDNO. 
>>The IDNO and its structure is not *the* constituency, but it is the
>>potential gateway *for* the constituency, and it is the only one until
>>someone creates a better one. (Not an easy task as the last 2 years 
>have
>>proved).
>[roberto]
>OK, let's start from here.
>IDNO is a component of the constituency, but I am afraid (learning from 
>the past and trying to interpret the actions from the Board) that if it 
>will continue being the only one, we will not go very far.
>

Hi Roberto,

Who's We? The Individual Domain Name holders?  The DNSO? The GA? You as a
proxy for the Board? The special NC task force, acting as a proxy for the
Board? 
Please clarify.

There are plenty of groups and individuals standing for DN rights.  But do
you now want to turn an IDNO constituency into a Constituency of
organizations, like the NCDNHC, or have one of  real warm blooded individuals?
  
>The reason why I wanted to get into the picture small (family?) 
>businesses,

Yes, (mom & pop stores owning a Domain share the typical interests of
Individual DN holders)

> end users, 

No, not if they don't have DN's .  What does DNSO stand for?

>and other types of stakeholders 

No. If they have  significant DNS stakeholder concerns, they can petition
the Board themselves.
Why do you want to dilute the Domain Name holder aspect of our
representation?  


(remember my 
>position in Yokohama?), is because I have the impression that we are 
>stalling. 

We are stalling, because the NC's task force is stalling. Ken Stubs told me
in Yokohama to be ready for a lot of questions. Well, it is now 2 months
and we still haven't heard a peep from the NC. 

>With an AtLarge Membership on the hundreds of thousands, an 
>application from few hundred individuals will not be enough.

We were there with the DNSO constituency proposal long before the AL masses.

>But there are among us people that are in contact with large bodies that
> do the interests of end users (consumers), small business, ...
>For instance:
>- Jamie Love could get the interest of some consumer organization to the
> project
>- ISOC has a large basis of individuals as members

Do you mean that  the GA ask Jamie and ISOC to recommend that their
Individual Domain Name owning members join the new DNSO constituency....?

>- the AtLarge membership in itself, even if not organized (yet), has a 
>potential interest in participating in DNSO debates, and thus to push 
>for an Individual Constituency
>

As you say, the At Large Membership is totally unorganized and all it can
do is vote for pre-selected Board members (and perhaps some self-nominated
ones). Who is going to bootstrap its bottom-up organization?  Is one of the
newly elected AL directors supposed to do that?
How long do you think that will take?

>IMHO, while I am looking forward to IDNO to grow, I keep my point that 
>we have to look also in other directions if we want to have good chances
> to succeed.
>
Again that "we".   
The current members of the IDNO constituency should be free to let the NC
know if they want their DN interests to be diluted by other interests.  
If a compromise is needed, they will decide by way of a Vote.
(pardon for the cross-post to idno-discuss, but our members need to be
aware of this discussion)









--Joop--
www.idno.org
--
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