Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

["Roberto Gaetano" <ga_list@hotmail.com>]

David Farrar wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 11:53:17 -0700, "Mark C . Langston"
><mark@bitshift.org> wrote:
> >No.  The existence (or not) of an SO in no way changes the necessity
> >for individual domain name holders to have a voice within the DNSO
> >formal structure.
>
>I agree.  Under ICANN bylaws gTLD policy comes from the DNSO and
>individual registrants are a 100% legitimate interest there.
>
>Obviously we should look at the proposed role and function of an at
>large SO to prevent overlap but in no way should we say there is now
>no need for individual registrants to be represented within the DNSO
>because of this.
>

Please let me give give two replies to this and other posts on the subject.

First, as an individual, I do believe that if a proposal for an ALSO is 
going forward (and you bet it will, because from the legal POV it is the 
only way the lawyers see to avoid the "membership under California law" 
potential problem and still be able to give a voice to the users), it will 
be even more difficult to argument for an IDNH Constituency in the DNSO.
Besides, just in case somebody did not realize it yet, the DNSO "as it is 
today" is dead and buried, because it failed, in the ICANN BoD's eyes, its 
mission to provide vice to the Board on matters related to the DNS. Whether 
it can regenerate itself from its ashes, is the real question. I personally 
do believe that it will, but not keeping the present structure.
As a side note, would you think that the ccTLDs, once the CCSO formed, could 
keep their Constituency in the DNSO? The same reasonment applies: as ccTLD 
Constituency they have a direct interest in the DNS and in its policies (the 
gTLDs are competitors to a certain extent - why leave to them only the power 
of influencing the DNSO advice to the Board?), while as CCSO they have a 
broader interest, spanning also on the protocols used in the Net, on the 
interaction with the GAC, on the way IP addresses are distributed across the 
world, on the way the root servers are managed, in other words, interests 
going well beyond the scope of the DNSO.
So, if it is good for the goose, it should be good for the ganser (or 
whatever the spelling is), and we would assist to a multiplication of 
requests to build autonomous SOs.

This said, putting back my "GA-Rep-in-the-Review-TF", I note that the vast 
majority of the comments on this subject are disagreeing with me, and 
proposing that the request for an IDNH/Registrant Constituency be part of 
the (reformed) DNSO.
In this respect, I would like to continue the debate on the requirements for 
the new constituencies (see 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc01/msg00006.html and reply by MM 
in http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc01/msg00008.html).

Personally, I believe that the criteria must be limited to a general 
introduction to the need for a new constituency, a series of "whereas" 
explaining the history, and a list of statements on the line of what the 
accepted constituencies have produced in order to gain acceptance (see 
http://www.icann.org/minutes/exhibita.htm - presented in Berlin 1999).
Of course, it will be in the best interest of the wannabe constituency to 
produce more and better evidence to better build their case, but it should 
not be a requirement for the DNSO to open a debate and a vote in the NC).

Whaddoyou think? Fair enough?

Regards
Roberto



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

--
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