Re: [ga] Resolution to Restructure the DNSO

["babybows.com" <webmaster@babybows.com>]

Jonathan Weinberg was kind enough to write to me off-list and to offer his
permission to post the following comments:

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:weinberg@mail.msen.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 10:03 AM
To: babybows.com
Subject: Re: [ga] Resolution to Restructure the DNSO

          Impressive resolution.  A couple of issues to be aware of:

Section 3. THE GA BODIES
 (a) Each Body shall self-organize, and shall determine its own criteria for
participation, except that no individual or entity shall be excluded from
participation in a Body merely because of participation in another Body, and
Bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and
transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure
fairness. Each Body will be provided with its own public mailing list, and
will provide a status report to the GA at each meeting.
 (b) Each Body shall select one individual to represent that Body.
 (c) Any group of individuals or entities may petition the GA for
recognition as a new or separate Body. A Body of the GA shall be deemed
formed when at least 10% of the GA members listed in the GA voting registry
offer to the GA Chair or Co-Chair a charter for such GA body. Any such
petition and charter will be posted for public comment. The GA will create
new Bodies in response to such petition.
 (d) The initial Bodies shall consist of: individuals, ccTLD registries,
commercial and business entities, gTLD registries, ISP and connectivity
providers, non-commercial domain name holders, registrars, trademark and
other intellectual property and anti-counterfeiting interests. The veto of
any two such bodies will thwart a declaration of consensus by the GA.

1.      Under these rules, it would appear that 10% of the GA could
self-organize as the "oatmeal body," and then the *same* 10% could
self-organize as the "porridge body," and have the two votes necessary to
block consensus (since, after all, "no individual or entity shall be
excluded from participation in a Body merely because of participation in
another Body.")  Compare this language from the 2/4/99 "Paris draft" for
the DNSO:

a. Members of the General Assembly shall self-organize into diverse
constituencies. No member shall be a member of more than one constituency.
The initial constituencies shall be recognized by the ICANN Board based on
the following criteria:
Constituencies other than the constituency representing registries, shall
represent at least 5% of the members of the General Assembly.
Constituencies shall be open to membership without regard to geographic
location.
Constituencies shall adopt open and transparent processes that comply with
these Rules and the ICANN Bylaws.  Constituencies shall not be formed or
recognized insofar as they are based on geographic location, religious
affiliation, governmental affiliation, or membership in any particular
corporation or organization.

2.      I suspect that even without that problem, under these rules, the
DNSO could *never* produce a consensus declaration on any remotely
interesting issue.  For example, we could not have gotten a declaration in
favor of adding new gTLDs, since both IPC and B&C were hostile.  That's true
with the eight initial bodies you propose, and it's even more true if the
number of bodies grows over time, but the veto of any two of the (many)
bodies can still block a resolution.  Part of this relates to a
contradiction at ICANN's heart -- ICANN purports to operate by consensus,
but it was formed to decide controversial policy issues for which consensus
is unavailable.  But to resolve that contradiction by requiring that all GA
resolutions have the acquiescence of all bodies (or all but one) will likely
make the DNSO incapable of passing anything, which will by default leave
ICANN staff in the position of making all of the decisions themselves.

Jon



--
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