Re: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

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

At 16:50 11/09/00 -0700, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>> To imply that the IDNO be responsible for this marketing effort is a burden
>> that no other existing constituency has had to put up with. Simply, the
IDNO
>> won't.
>
>I appreciate the high level of frustration in knowing how a draft
>application measures up against an unclear subjective standard, but one way
>around that is to submit an application so far beyond any reasonable
>expectation that no one could vote against it. It may not be fair, and it
>might be a much higher bar than any other constituency was required to meet,
>but how could the Board reject an application from 1000+ individual domain
>name registrants, supported by stable infrastructure, who were ready and
>able to pay their share of the DNSO expenses? I don't think they would, even
>over the objection of other constituencies.
>

Bret,

It is all very well to start quantifying the hurdles and put a number on
them, but what is the use if such a goalpost (and its rationale)  does not
come from the ICANN board?

Did the ICANN Board demand that 1000 organizations join the NCDNHC *before*
it could be recognized in principle?

Hurdle 2: Stable Infrastructure. What does this mean? An absence of
disagreement or public personality conflicts among members?  A Charter
approved by the initial 200 and impossible to change by the next 800?
What about ICANN's bylaws?   Is ICANN itself stable by your definition?

Hurdle 3: (the ability to share the DNSO expenses) is another one.
Little has been said about this yet. It is good that you raise it, so that
it can be taken into account that no Disney, Microsoft, CISCO or Oracle are
standing by to fund this constituency organizing and marketing effort.
And, since we are of no obvious use to them, no NSI either.  :-)

Does all that make the DN holders, as they have organized, somehow unfit to
ask for representation? 

What makes *DN holders* a constituency is the fact that they are at the
receiving end of regulation by other interests. That's all. 
ICANN has recognized this only as far as non-commercial *organizations*. 
A number of Individuals has seen the deficiency of this approach and have
self-organized into the IDNO. 
The IDNO and its structure is not *the* constituency, but it is the
potential gateway *for* the constituency, and it is the only one until
someone creates a better one. (Not an easy task as the last 2 years have
proved).

What we have petitioned (and the number of petitioners can be 30, 100 or
1000-it doesn't matter) is to be recognized as that gateway.

What you are saying is that the organization of this new constituency,
constructed by individuals from the bottom up, could somehow emerge
financially strong against all odds and be in all respects more legitimate
than ICANN itself.  
Is that likely?

--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