Re: [ga] Re: Channels to create an IC

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

"babybows.com" wrote:

My personal view...

Bill Lovell has raised the issue of the role of the Names Council with
regard to the creation of an Individuals' Constituency.

Subsequent to the report of the Names Council DNSO Review Task Force, the
Names Council put forth a Business Plan (20 Feb) which stated (under the
heading "Strategies"), "Establish an interim committee to propose terms of
reference for an NC task force or other group to implement the following:
5.4 Individuals Constituency. Review the need, uniqueness, potential
contribution and representiveness of an individual domain name holder's
constituency."

The last Names Council teleconference bore witness to the fact that none of
the Names Council "Interim Committees" have yet established any "terms of
reference" for any new project cited in the Business Plan - they are
"hoping" to get this work accomplished by Stockholm.

If the inference is "too little, too late," as it would seem to be, I agree
wholeheartedly. The negative impression of the NC expressed by the
INTLA (or whatever the hell that is -- the 11,000 trademark lawyers)
would have been quite correct, although they were quite wrong on the
IC issue.  Any restructuring of the DNSO (see below) should also
consider eliminating the NC, if what we seem to be seeing is truly
representative of its "work."
> Three months to pose the most basic "terms of reference"...
> This is yet
> another example of the abject failure of the constituency structure
> model.
> That one set of constituencies can vote to threaten the voting rights
> of
> other constituencies is still another example of the folly of this
> structure.
Danny raises a legitimate issue here.  So long as there are constituencies
at
all, I believe there should be an IC -- Individuals' Constituency --
and I think
the last week or so has shown quite a bit more support for one than
Danny's
email to which I now respond suggests.
> I remind you that the majority of the members of
> the Review Working Group
> called for the abolition of this constituency structure (supporting
> the
> initiative of Director Karl Auerbach to roll the constituencies back
> into
> the GA on a one-man-one-vote basis).
That is worthy of consideration.  At the same time, I'd put in a plug
for the
separate emal groups (ga-ext, etc.) that Patrick has set up. 
Reason is, I've got
172 emails staring at me right now, and with just a broad GA list everything
under the sun would be coming in.  (I'm a "techie" in my own fields,
but IP
structures and all that are just not my bag, and the work of the other
SOs
is not my bag either, so I don't need all that in my inbox.) 
It's just a matter
of focus on the issues in which one specifically wishes to get involved.
(This is not a decisive thing, however -- if we end up with just the
GA list,
I'll use my delete button.)
> It's time to move forward on the basis of conclusions
> already reached.
> Creating new constituencies does not solve our problems (especially
> if they
> can't afford to vote).  The Board has expressed its willingness
> to consider
> structural changes in the DNSO (resolution 01.28).  It is time
> to push the
> Names Council to get on with its job until such time as it is dissolved
> and
> replaced by a structure that better guarantees full representation.
Especially, since the accepted motion is at hand which says that
the creation
of an Individuals' Constituency -- IC -- be studied, that those on
whatever
Working Group that is get cracking.
> The only people that I have seen pushing for an Individuals'
> Constituency
> are the few members of the idno that will occasionally strike up a
> conversation on their own list.
Not so -- see above, and below.
> When Joop fails to post on this topic on
> the GA list, no one else posts on this topic.  Where is the true
> measure of
> support?  The idno Chair has not even come forward to support
> the motion
> recently put forth, and frankly has not even participated on the idno
> list
> since January.
The "idno Chair" -- Joop Ternstra -- has now jumped into the IC bit quite
a lot on [ga], I believe a lot of which is dated after this email to
which I
now respond, so if that is or was a problem, it has gone away.
> An effort has been made to discourage bringing up
> the past history of the
> idno.  This history is an issue that warrants discussion.
Why?  If everyone is now on board an IC effort as Individuals, what
difference does any of that make?  Today's emails from Joop show
that
he can be as flexible as the rest of us, and indeed WXW has graciously
expressed his own willingness to join with others that have "followed
his
path," so to speak, and speak out as Individuals on the IC issue, i.e.,
others who support having an IC, so if such bunches of people
(separately as Individuals and speaking in each case only from their
own personal perspectives) are lining up in support of having an IC,
why rock the boat?
> Make no mistake about it, if an Individuals' Constituency
> is created, the
> idno will be the first organization in line seeking to represent
> individuals.
Of course the idno would have, and indeed already has, through Joop's
earlier motion. That tide seems to be turning, however, and I think
it
VERY important to make clear a distinction here.  We vote FIRST
on the question of whether to have an IC.  Although a lot
of poohbah
will go into deciding that issue, such poohbah undoubtedly including
competing charters and various personages rushing to the front of the
line, the QUESTION on which a vote is first to be taken -- a question
which by the rules permits only a yes or a no -- will be: Should
there
be an IC? If that came out affirmative, then, and only then,
would the
issue of who that's going to be would become of relevance. I say we
fight that battle when we get to it, with the observation that "who
that's
going to be" will most certainly be all of us -- it could in fact BE
the
GA! (I'd not favor that, though, without a simultaneous abolishment
of the NC -- this is an "off the top notion," and I might well change
it
upon further thought. One such thought rests on the role of the GA
in speaking for, or more exactly, including, others than individuals,
and one would not want that to disappear. And then there's that At-
Large thing.  Life do get complicated.)

(Having been cut off by my ISP because I took too long to write
this, I've had a chance at further thought, and I now doubt that the
GA should become just an IC -- it has a much broader role. What
now bothers me is that in the organizational chart of ICANN as
posted on the web -- which I might mention is hopelessly out of
date -- I see "GA" nowhere.)

> If they can't get sufficiently organized to present
> their own
> petition, and have it accepted by the Board, then why should I, or
> any of
> you, want them representing us?
See above.
>  The channels are available to them under
> the Bylaws to put forward their own petition.  Let them do so. 
> No one is
> stopping them.  Perhaps at some point they will actually create
> a new
> petition for presentation, although I have seen no effort on their
> own list
> to do this.  I don't see why the GA should support their very
> transparent
> ploy.
But also, if we now have a Working Group examining the IC issue, we
should let that proceed (unless we discover that all of those on that
WG
have died and gone to heaven). I say this only because to have this
group
or that grinding out a deluge of Petitions to the Board would be quite
a
confusing mess.  Direct line procedures that lead to the Board
are now
in place and presumably functioning. And I might add, terms such as
"transparent ploy" are counterproductive and ought not to be used.

(On the other hand, I found "unstabilized disruptor" to be so hilarious
I about bust a gut laughing!)

> This is not about individuals having a voice, this
> effort is directed at
> getting idno members seats on the Names Council.   Their
> website already
> indicates who those NC members will be:  Joop Teernstra, Dinesh
> Nair, Dennis
> Schaefer.
As I read the latest from Joop, while that might have been the case initially,
it may not be so now. For reasons for which I am partly to blame in
seeking
a new effort (Patrick has spoken out against the same, and I now agree
with
him), simply because at that time I (like Vany) was not aware of the
"ground
rules" already set out but which Vany later pointed out, we should
all now be
aware of the resolution that because of those ground rules has an IC
effort
presently functioning(?). If that is really so, I suggest we let it
proceed; if it is
not, I suggest we tar and feather those who agreed to do that work
and have
not done so, if that is the case, and one way or the other replace
them with
others who will.
> Joop's motion will be voted on this coming week. 
> He and I will jointly
> agree on appropriate language for the ballot question as we are at
> odds on
> this issue.  While I do not support his motion, the General Assembly
> will
> make the decision, and I will put forward the position of the GA to
> the
> Board.
So let's see if that happens.

(As always, there's a lot of stuff to pore through here, and if I've got any
of this wrong, please post your corrections (politely, of course!) :-)

Bill Lovell