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

[Sandy Harris <sandy@storm.ca>]

Joop Teernstra wrote:
> 
> 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. ...
> >
> >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.

By whose definition?

The problem, as I see it, is to make DNS work well for the network at large.
Of course that means making it reasonably easy to administer, both for the
site DNS admins and for whoever runs the registries, but that is a secondary
concern.

Limiting the power of the registries is a legitimate concern. e.g. see
Auerbach's paper on who owns the whois database:

http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear/growl/index.htm

If we can make reasonable accomodations for essentially irrelevant special
interests like trademark lawyers, so much the better. I didn't think that
was necessary; the courts already provide enforcement mechanisms. Another
view won out, so ICANN has defined a dispute resolution mechanism. Good.
Now can we drop all discussion in which "IP" stands for anything other
than "Internet Protocol" and get on with the real work? 

> 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.

No, at best he's a statesman.

[snip]

> 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)

Yes indeed.
 
> 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* . ..

> 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.
> 
Yes.

Then there are the end users, everyone who uses DNS, many without knowing
it is there. Organisations like EFF or GLIC that work for network civil
rights, and might claim to represent users' interests, have a far better
claim to ICANN representation than "IP" lawyers ever will.
--
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