Re: [ga] Re: Documentation request

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

on 8/7/01 9:19 AM, Peter de Blanc at pdeblanc@usvi.net wrote:

> My question is, has such self-organization, and production of documents
> taken place?
> 
> Peter de Blanc


Peter,

You may remember that a Constituency for Individual Domain Name Registrants
was discussed and debated at length by WG-Review and your positive support
is noted in the archives in response to the straw poll question, "Do you
support representation" for individuals in DNSO along the lines of a new
constituency".

As NC representative and Chair of WG-Review, Y J Park noted in the Final
Report, http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01434.html

<quote>


"The most visible and audible demand from Review WG apart from "Drop the
Constituencies" is to recognize "Individual Domain Name Holders/Owners" in
the Internet Policy-making process since its beginning. There have been
counterargument that individuals can be represented through At-Large which
will result in duplicated representation in the ICANN.

However, Karl Auerbach's comment on this issue has some valid points, too.

    "If the logic that is being used to block the individual domain
     name holders constituency were applied to the other constituencies they
     too would have to be dissolved because they are, under the rubric of
     that logic, represented via the at-large."

In addition to such requests, from its early stage WG members including Bret
Fausset, the current WG D Chair together with Theresa Swinehart, discussed
the formal procedure to set up new constituencies. Here is Bret Fausset's
message which emphasized on setting up due procedure for new constituencies
with formality. [Appendix 7]"

<end quote>

Both Appendix 7 and Appendix 5,
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01440.html, Appendix 5 being
a proposal for membership criteria, were not only submitted to NC Task Force
DNSO Review (the previous one), but were passed forward to the BoD as part
of the NC's DNSO Review Task Force Final Report.


Added to that, in YJ's report, she notes,

<quote>

"3. Specified DNSO Review-WGs are to be Formed.
        - DNSO without Constituency Proposal
        - DNSO with Established Procedure to Create New Constituencies
        - DNSO Budget Proposal"

It has to be said that had WG-Review not been summarily ceased by the NC,
then further work could have been accomplished by interested persons
regarding the creation of a constituency for individuals.

We are grateful for the NC Review Task Force's attention to this important
issue. 

Would you like clean copies of the documents cited above, and if so, should
these be forwarded to the list, your website forum, or where?

Regards,
Joanna  







--
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