Re: [ga] Re: Restructuring Proposal

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Danny and all assembly members,

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> In response to Jeff Williams comments posted to the GA-full list:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc09/msg02215.html
>
> The ASO, in fact, has constituencies:  ARIN, RIPE NCC, and APNIC (soon to be
> joined by LACNIC and AFRNIC).

  Those are not constituencies as in the DNSO Danny.  They are IP
registries or RPP's.

>  The PSO also has constituent members:  IETF,
> W3C, ITU-U, and ETSI.

  Again these also are not constituencies as in the DNSO.  They are
various standards bodies.

>  Special Interest Groups (SIGs) usually are in a
> position to find an umbrella group (constituency) within which they may
> aggregate.  In the example that you have cited (the Catholic Domain Name
> Holders group, the Buddhist Domain name holders Group and the Moslem's global
> domain name holders group), all three groups would most likely unite their
> efforts within a Domain Name Holder's or Registrant's Constituency.

  Not from what I understand from the Vatican for instance.  And I find it
VERY doubtful that any of these nonexistent organizations, but possible
to be formed sometime in the future, would EVER consider joining
a single "Registrants Constituency", which also does not exist presently
either.  However a VERY few may in the short term.  However the
differences in the makeup of those religious groups which Jefsey
mentioned and you responded to, which I than replied as to the
possibility of various future "Constituencies Groups" would
presuppose that some religious unity would exist in the future.
If history is any guide I am afraid that such a thought is beyond
common sense.

>
>
> Such a constituency would need to vie for a "seat at the table" by
> demonstrating that it has met certain threshold requirements, that it is a
> self-sustaining institution, that it operates to the maximum extent feasible
> in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to
> ensure fairness, that it's participation serves the purposes of the
> Corporation, and that it has a greater claim to representation on the Board
> than another set of stakeholders (perhaps a group whose membership status is
> in default owing to an insufficient membership roster, or whose contributions
> to the ICANN process have been minimal to the degree that input from another
> group would better serve the best interests of the Corporation).

  Nice quote and quite right.  I doubt that any of the potential religious
groups that I outlined would not, now, or could not easily meet these
requirements.

>
>
> One of the realities of a petition-for-recognition mechanism is that not all
> petitions will be accepted by the Board.

  How true.  We saw that with the IDNO.

>  We have already witnessed this
> reality in the previously failed petition of the IDNO.

  Yes see above comment.

>  It is a simple fact
> that the Board will wish to reserve such representation for major
> stakeholders as opposed to minor stakeholders.

  This remains to be seen.  It also remains to be seen that the BOD
can or has recognized what Major stakeholder is, as in evidence with
the rejection of the IDNO partition and the mistreatment of the SBA
some time ago.

>
>
> Mr. Williams additionally seems to be arguing for the continued existence of
> the DNSO as an institution.

  No, I am arguing I thought clearly in conjunction with some of your
previous positions that the DNSO GA is where the DNSO stakeholders
collectively belong.

>  I would appreciate hearing further arguments as
> to why the DNSO should be retained within a reformed ICANN.

  The simplest is that the DNS is a central aspect of the Internet.
Registration of Domain Names, defining TLD's and DNS Routing
fall within the aspects of DNS.  As such, the DNSO is broadly
considered necessary...

>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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