Re: [ga] DNSO Review Task Force

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

At 11:07 29/09/01 +1200, DPF wrote:


Thanks David, for the call for Action. And thanks , Roberto, for providing 
the path.
May I again implore our Chair to chair this constructive work  and assist 
in keeping the growth of this document focused?


> >
> >1. Need
> >1.1 What need would the proposed new constituency fill?

The need for representation of Individual Domain Name Holders, a unique 
segment of DNS stakeholders that generally lacks the resources to work for 
the security of their Domain Names individually.


> >1.2 What would the proposed new constituency bring to the DNSO that is now
> >lacking?
> >

A better balance between constituencies of Domain Name Suppliers' 
representatives and Domain Name Registrant representatives.

> >2. Common interest
> >2.1 What commonality of interest would the members of the proposed new
> >constituency share?
> >

The personal concern of  an Individual Domain Name Holder for 
his/her  Domain Name.
This is distinct from the bond between a corporation or a non-commercial 
organization and their Domain Name.

> >3. Distinction
> >3.1 How much overlap in membership is there likely to be between the
> >proposed new constituency and existing constituencies,

Since the other constituencies do not accept Individual Membership, there 
is no overlap.
However, any of the other constituencies can  and will send their 
representatives into the new Individuals' Constituency in an effort to 
dominate it.
Therefore some safeguard must be drawn up to make sure that the new 
constituency really speaks for the typical interests of Individuals.

>  the General Assembly

Many of the future members of the Individuals' Constituency are now 
gathered in the General Assembly, proving their strong interest in the 
ICANN processes.

> >and other parts of ICANN?
> >

There is no current representation of Individual Domain Name Holders 
elsewhere in the ICANN structure.


> >4. Representation
> >4.1 How representative of the stated common interest would the proposed new
> >constituency be?

Only a geniune democratic structure and a large number of geniune members 
can guarantee that. If the representatives do not work for the shared 
common interest, they are not (re)elected.

> >4.2 What steps have the petitioners taken to establish a hierarchy of
> >representativeness and openness within the proposed new constituency?
> >

They have created a Charter with an elected Executive Committee and other 
elective positions.
They have a website where the process of nominations and elections is 
detailed.


> >5. Alternatives
> >5.1 Are there alternative means of fulfilling the stated need besides
> >recognition of a new constituency?
> >5.2 Are there other places within the ICANN structure where this need could
> >be fulfilled?
> >
> >6. Organisation on a global scale
> >6.1 What steps have the proponents of the proposed new constituency 
> taken to
> >organise the proposed new constituency?
> >6.2 Has the proposed new constituency demonstrated the capability to 
> command
> >the financial and human resources required by a constituency?
> >
> >7. Support within the DNSO
> >7.1 What steps have the proponents of the proposed new constituency 
> taken to
> >seek support from existing constituencies?
> >
> >8. Impact assessment
> >8.1 What would be the impact of the proposed new constituency on existing
> >constituencies?
> >8.2 What would be the impact of the proposed new constituency on the
> >finances and administration of the DNSO?
> >8.3 What would be the impact of the proposed new constituency on policy
> >formation within the DNSO?
>
>--

It is past midnight here. This is just for starters and needs further 
fleshing out, of course.
I gladly give others the opportunity to jump some of the other hurdles.


--Joop

--
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