Re: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 04:39:05PM +0200, Jean-Michel Becar wrote:
> If my memory is not too bad, the constituency model was hardly discussed
> during the DNSO creation process - and this was the major issue.

The constituency model was discussed at great and acrimonious length,
though almost every significant DNSO proposal had some form of
constituency model. 

While the focus these days is on the IP constituency, IP interests paid
very little attention to the DNSO when it was first forming.  The major
force pushing the constituency model was the ccTLDs, and a little bit
from the ISPs.  At the Monterrey meeting, for example, the ccTLDs
represented half the attendees, and there were only a couple of people
from IP interests.  If I remember correctly, in fact, the "registries"
proposal was that the registries would get *half* the votes on the Names
Council. 

> I don't think that IP people or others will accept to merge with another
> constituency... and even if we succeed some group of people will create
> sub-constituencies and we will return at the beginning.

The objections of the IP constituency would be microscopic compared to
the objections of the ccTLD constituency :-) 

> Now to try to remove the constituency model will be also a hard task and it
> will habe a deep impact on the Names Council. THis is a tricky probem.
> 
> An intermediate model could be to have only 3 constituencies:
> - Registries (ccTLDs, and gTLDs), 
> - Registrars 
> - Users (Trademark and intellectual property, Commercial and Business
> entities, ISPs and connectivity providers ,Non-commercial domain name
> holders )

That would pit two very sharply and clearly defined sets of interests 
against an impossibly diffuse interest.  The NCC already has the 
problem of being very diffuse.

> and this model will give an answer to the individual domain name holders as
> they can be integrated with the users.
> 
> But frankly I don 't see how to manage to get rid of the actual situation.

Yep.  There is no realistic way to eliminate constituencies, because
they reflect an underlying political reality.  In fact, the current
constituencies are a fairly faithful reflection of that underlying
reality: the current DNSO structure is the result of a long process with
*many* hard-fought battles; territories have been established, and any
serious attempt to disrupt those territories is not going to get very
far.  All that stuff about being doomed to repeat history...

However, there are clearly improvements that can be made.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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