[ga] DNSO Constituency Structure

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

On Saturday, March 31, 2001 4:58 AM (AEST)
Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com> wrote:
Subject: RE: [ga] Top Level Domain Association - NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST

> I might point out that this was suggested before and is something that the
> ICANN BoD is proven to be steadfastly against. Although, Karl Auerbach is
> one of the original supporters of such a flexible constituency model

It seems that I agree with Karl in relation to much of what he proposes ;-).

As a matter of interest, I'll refer you to one of Karl's postings on the subject
(see below).  It's dated 22 Jun 2000 and still makes interesting reading today.

> and the
> @large BoD members may favor it, I don't believe that the four BoD squatters
> would continence such behaviour. Together with the carry-over interim BoD,
> they have the veto capability.

Unlike you to be so negative, Roeland.  Sure, it's going to be a hard-fought
battle but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.  Times are a-changing and the
pressure is on ICANN.

> Personally, I don't see how it can be implemented with the resources at
> hand. The theory is nice, but can it fly? The KISS method would elect all NC
> seats, from the GA, and relegate constituencies to the role of PACs, until
> such time as we can figure out a way to do it better. I submit that such
> activity will take a number of years to complete.

One problem is that the ICANN by-laws require constituencies to "self organize"
and whenever they try to (like the Individual Domain Name Owners constituency)
they are told they are not organized enough.  But no-one knows how organized
they have to be.  The Registry Constituency was considered organized with only
one member.

And you can't get people into the GA if they feel that they are a small piece of
fluff lost in a giant machine.  There has to be local or small-scale
organisarion.

At the last ICANN Board meeting in Melbourne, Andy Mueller-Maguhn tried to
establish a constituency for individuals but he was out of order in the
procedure.  In fact I believe he couldn't even get it on the agenda (which is
controlled by the staff).  If Karl could have seconded Andy at least it would
have been put on the table for discussion.

After the Board meeting, Joop and I spoke to several Board members.  Jonathan
Cohen said quite clearly words to the effect:

 "I am not personally opposed to an individuals constituency but that was
proposed, and rejected, by the ICANN Board about 18 months or two years ago.
If you want to try again (i.e. submit another proposal) you will need to show
that the circumstances have changed since last time.  Otherwise there will be no
reason for the Board to reconsider the proposal.  I don't want to suggest to you
what you need to show but there will have to be something different to warrant
reconsideration.  It will have to be a fresh proposal."

When I heard this, it was clear to me that Jonathan was being fair.  Any public
service official would say the same.  "Your proposal has been rejected.  What's
new that will cause us to change our minds?"  Changed circumstances could
include more members, wider community support, a better structure, etc.  This is
the problem inherent in the by-laws requiring self-organisation.  No criteria!!

Of course ICANN could lead from the top but that's not likely.  It has to be
bottom-up.  It is my view that this process needs some support from the GA.  So
how can we do it within the present framework?  It has to be simple and
effective.  And applicable to any constituency in a general framework.

The main thing to understand is that we are a virtual community in the first
place.  Many of the people in the GA have domain names and are thus eligible to
join an individuals constituency.  But everybody is busy doing other stuff.  We
have to have it served up on a plate.

The easiest way to achieve this objective is by way of mailing lists.  The DNSO
can set up a mailing list for "individuals" as a sub-mailing list to the GA.
Those who join the "individual" list go through the same procedure as for the GA
but become subscribed to both lists.

Then you've got the self-organisation that you need.  You can do the same for
ISPs, small businesses or any other "virtual" constituency.  See what happens.
You'll be surprised.  It's not interfering but it's providing a way for it to
happen.

> We need to start looking
> at this in tiered near-term,  mid-term, and long-term views, IMHO. Without
> doing so, we run into conflict with what can be done now v. what we want to
> do in the future.

Well, Roeland, what are we doing in the near-term? Very little.  Mid-term?  Not
very much.  And long-term?  Even less.  So why don't we make a start.  The
longest journey has to start with the first step.   Mind, I know we've been
running round in circles so far ;-).

On Thursday, June 22, 2000 5:39 PM
Karl Auerbach <karl@CAVEBEAR.COM> wrote:
Subject: Re: ICANN Constituencies (was "Budget for a Registry")

> It's really not necessary to discuss the ICANN DNSO constituency structure
> very much - it has about as much legitimacy and fairness as a if there
> were a governing body for airline safety that only allowed airplane
> builders, airlines, and morticians to present evidence and make decisions
> - leaving passengers and crews with nothing but to endure the decisions.
>
> But no matter about the glaring disparity between ICANN's aspirations to
> fairness and the reality of its multiple apartheids; we will continue to
> be distracted by ever more absurd mounds of non-sense and poor Sophistry
> from the ICANN sychophant(s) and by the Dr. Pongloss wannabe(s) endlessly
> proclaiming ICANN to be the best of all possible faux-democracies.
>
> The simple fact is that even with the unfairness of the constituencies,
> the ICANN board won't let the supporting organizations make choices.  For
> example, the DNSO wasn't permitted to exercise its by-law-given role in
> the NTIA/NSI/ICANN decisions at all.  And recently the board sat by while
> ICANN's permanent-temporary CEO self-created and self-declared a new
> policy about pioneer registraries.
>
> The only way to repair ICANN's "constituencies" is to eliminate them and
> replace the entire structure with the atomic unit of interest, with the
> most indivisible of "stakeholders", the individual person.  The Names
> Council (and the equivalent councils of the other SO's) should be
> abolished, with no replacement.  And "consensus" should be abandoned as a
> useless kind of new-age wishy-washy way to avoid responsibility and
> replaced by clear voting on clearly stated matters.

I don't agree with Kar's abolition of constituencies in this case but I share
his sentiments.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss








--
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