RE: [ga] Joop's motions

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Hello Bill,

The problem is, as you have hinted, partially a marketing problem. The issue
is that individuals owning domains have no organization. The other side of
that coin is, such an organization needs resources to "become". This appears
to be a catch-22. The original IDNO was envisioned to overcome this problem.
That it went otherwise is irrelevent, the problem remains.

Yes, we can call it an IC and use the context, of the DNSO, to define that
the IC is Individual [Domain Name] Constituency. However, this gives us yet
another name to poison with [yet another] false start.

The membership of the DNSO may have painted themselves into a corner here,
or are about to.

-----Original Message-----
From: William S. Lovell [mailto:wsl@cerebalaw.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2001 1:37 PM
To: babybows.com; ga@DNSO.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Joop's motions


On the history of developing an Individual Domain Name Holders Constituency,

(IDNHC) Danny and I have reached the same place by somewhat different
routes. 
(He has been working in the system longer than I have, and knows the ropes
better.) 
We also reach comparable conclusions, which is that Joop and the IDHO are 
working under a false premise. 
But first, since from Florida we know how voters can get confused, I would 
strongly urge that the desired representation for individuals be given the
term 
"Individuals Constituency = IC."  If this group has too many "fumble
fingers" 
in it, as I can sometimes be, IDNH and IDNO will get confused, and people 
may be yelling "yeah, yeah" for one when they mean the other. 
But as to the substance, the incorrect premise is that to form an IC one
goes 
through some list of existing bodies that have advanced themselves as 
candidates.  That is how registrars get accredited, but not how an IC 
should be formed.  IC means individuals, and the voices in any process 
that would form one should be those of individuals, not some pre-existing 
clique, no matter who it is. The members of any such clique may of course 
contribute whatever they want to to the discussion and development of 
the process, but, although in democratic processes we end up delegating 
authority to speak for us whenever the rules call for "representative" 
government (e.g., some bodies within ICANN are representative, the 
Board of Directors is not), on the issue of forming an IC I delegate the 
authority to speak for me to no one.  The "Working Group" on this 
subject is free to make its recommendations (and whoever they are, 
if they're not proceeding in doing that, they should be), of course, but 
one takes those recommendations for what they are worth and no more. 
(Um, "Power to the People?") 
(And I repeat again, with a process now at work, that papering the walls 
with yet more "motions," when that is not exactly how the decisional 
process set up by the DNSO works, is quite counterproductive and 
only breeds confusion in us clueless newbies.) 
(Have you registered to vote yet?) 
Bill Lovell 
"babybows.com" wrote: 
Joop, 
You were a participant in the DNSO Review Process.  The Review Working Group

together with the NC Review Task Force generated reports that were submitted

both to the Names Council and to the ICANN Board.  These reports resulted 
in: 
a. provisions within the Names Council Business Plan to specifically address

the subject of an Individuals Constituency.  "Review the need, uniqueness, 
potential contribution and representiveness of an individual domain name 
holder's constituency." 
b. The agreement among NC members to establish criteria/procedures to allow 
for new constituencies. 
c. The presentation of the NC Business Plan to the Board. 
d. An ICANN Board resolution (01.28) to consider DNSO structural changes. 
Your first re-worded motion is asking the Board to establish "ground rules" 
for an individuals' constituency.  The ICANN Board (in accepting the NC's 
Business Plan and in making their 01.28 resolution) has already attended to 
the need to establish ground rules.  The NC has been charged with this 
responsibility, and your re-worded motion, in my opinion, creates an 
unneeded redundancy.   Is my assessment incorrect? 
Your second re-worded motion includes the clause "if and when such an 
application is **again** presented to the Board.  This is an explicit 
reference to the former idno petition.  Why should the GA be advocating on 
behalf of any one petitioning group?  Why are you expecting the GA to take 
sides?  Perhaps another representative body will emerge...there are many 
members in this Assembly that are in favor of an Individual's Constituency 
that have reservations about supporting the idno in particular.  Is it 
necessary to include this language in your revised motion? 
Speaking as an Individual, 
Danny 
-- 
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
--
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