[ga-icann] ASO + PSO = TSO Technical Supporting Organisation

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

Hi Joanna

> The argument to that is that there is a fundamental conflict of interest
for
> the ccTLDSO to represent both themselves and their client. If the ccTLDs
> represent 244 countries and each has 1 vote on an issue, how many votes do
> registrants have? The balance of power has to be created by a separate SO
> for registrants, so that the ccTLDSO vote and the RegsitrantSO is
> commensurate, one vote each. I would like to hear from the ccTLDs on this
> issue.

I much prefer a three-way split between supply, demand and technical
infrastructure (such as ISPs and telcos).  That's natural and works pretty
well in Australia.

On the "supply" side you have Registries, Registrars, joint
Registry-Registrars and Registration Service Providers (such as OpenSRS
reselleres).  On the "demand" side you have business, non-commercial and
individual.

In my case I am a domain name owner with domains in both gTLDs and ccTLDs.
I cannot see that I need to have two voices to reflect my two different
views.  However, at the moment, the balance of power is strongly tilted
towards supply.  This needs to be redressed.

The problem is seen both in the current SOs where the DNSO plays a
subordinate role and in the 7 categories of constituencies included in the
constituency setup.  In fact the whole structure makes very little sense
from a purely logical viewpoint.

Why could we not combine the Address Supporting Organisation and the
Protocol Supporting Organisation into a single Technical Supporting
Organisation ("TSO")?  There is no reason for ISPs and connectivity
providers to be even a constituency in the DNSO as they are more properly
positioned in the TSO.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss





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