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

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

At 12:30 30/08/00 -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:
>Rick H Wesson wrote:
>
>> > The constituency structure is a failure and should be abandoned.
>> 
>> I agree, however could you suggest a better model, or how we could get
>> the constituency structure replaced and what it should be replaced by?
>
>The only model I know of that demonstrably works for the Internet is
>the IETF model. All working groups have mailing lists. Both those lists
>and the meetings are open to all comers.
>
>Moreover, everyone is expected to "leave their affiliations at the door"
>for working group meetings. The goal is to solve problems for the net,
>based on technical merit, NOT to represent your employer or interest
>group. Of course, it isn't actually that simple but at least the notion
>of leaving affiliations out of it is considered.
>
>This is almost the exact opposite of the constituency approach.
>--

With due respect Sandy, but what may work for engineers facing engineering
problems will not work for political jostling for power and representation,
as the DNSO by definition is.
In politics he who leaves his affiliations "at the door" is at best a
hypocrit and at worst a traitor to those who put him there.
Are the volunteer battlers expected to leave their convictions and
principles at the door too?

Policies that can endure must be the result of good compromises between all
parties affected by them. 
When power and influence are unequal, structures must be created that
neutralize this inequality.
(Not doing so means inviting revolt from below.  And the Internet is not a
Medieval peasant village.)

This needs engineering by those who have no Industry to defend. People who
don't need to leave their affiliation at the door. 
It is the interim Board that has done this engineering as announced in
Singapore.
The result proved that the initial Board did not typically consist of
people who had left their affiliation "at the door".

My problem with the Constituency structure is not so much that it is there,
but that it is

1. Not flexible  (different interest groups will need representation as
their "patch" gets in regulatory focus).  The Paris Draft has merit  on
this point. Parties should be allowed to form naturally.

2. Not honest  (Harald has it spot on--the current double and triple
representation of the same interests is a disgrace)

3. Not balanced (and therefore subjected to constant criticism by those who
are unrepresented)

What especially lacks in the current "constituency" lineup is
representation of the Holders of Domain Names *as such* .  The natural
opposite contract partner of the ISP, Hosting , Registrar and Registry
industry.
The party that needs protection against one-sided contracts dictated by
monopoly power.
(The party that breeds activists as fallout from an unjust URDP or from
rage with NSI--yes, my members' list is still growing.)

BTW, It is not necessarily the natural opponent of an ambitious Trade Mark
owner.
(A clued-up Individual Domain Name Owner has trademarked his own brands).

If the Special Task force is going to execute the will of this GA, it is
going to allow for such an additional constituency.

If this constituency will not be rudely outvoted in the NC, it can help the
DNSO to recommend more balanced DN policies to the ICANN Board.

That will be an improvement.



--Joop--
www.idno.org
--
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