[ga] Review Task Force report

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

David,

Almost every single criteria put forth in the Review Task Force document is 
nothing more than Phil Sheppard's re-phrasing of the comments put forth by 
Axel aus der Muhlen on the Review list on 16 Aug.  
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc01/ 

Those recommendations were criticized not only by Roberto, our Task Force 
representative, but by Milton Mueller who wrote:

I find this list of criteria to be extremely objectionable. The need for an 
individuals' constituency has already been recognized several times over. 
Question 1 has already been answered.  This is just a way for existing 
constituencies to preserve their unjust political advantages by setting up 
huge hurdles for recognition that none of the existing constituencies had to 
face.  If these criteria were applied to existing DNSO constituencies, we 
would immediately be forced to withdraw recognition of the ISP, registrar, 
registry non-commercial and possibly other constituencies.  The ISP, B&C, and 
Trademark constituencies all have tremendous overlap in terms of (potential) 
membership.   All ISPs, registrars, and registries are "businesses."  All the 
members of the trademark constituency are business associations. All ccTLDs 
are registries.  There is now tremendous overlap between the composition
of the registrar constituency and the gTLD constituency, in that all of the 
dominant gTLD delegees - Verisign, Register.com, Melbourne IT, Tucows - are 
or soon will be registry operators.  Many registrars who are not now registry 
operators have applied to be one and may become one in the future.  NC will 
really lose a lot of credibility by reneging on its commitment to recognize 
an individuals
constituency.  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc01/msg00008.html

Philip ignored these criticisms and the appended his own additional criteria 
to Axel's list:

5.1 Are there alternative means of fulfilling the stated need besides 
recognition of a new constituency? 
5.2 Are there other places within the ICANN structure where this need could 
be fulfilled? 
7.1 What steps have the proponents of the proposed new constituency taken to 
seek support from existing constituencies?

These additional criteria are designed to deny Individual Domain Name holders 
the opportunity to establish a constituency.  

There is no "Task Force".  There is only a slick effort on the part of Phil 
Sheppard to deny you your rights.  If you choose to remain complacent about 
it, that is your prerogative.  I, for one, intend to raise my voice.  

Consider some of their other conclusions:  DNSO working groups as currently 
formed are by construction not a representative sample of DNSO stakeholders 
because they are open to 
participation by anyone who chooses. It is possible but improbable that such 
a group will at any moment in time be so representative. This suggests that 
discussing consensus in such groups is unlikely to be productive and that the 
guidance given to the NC will be poor.  The Names Council is constructed to 
represent DNSO stakeholder interests and, notwithstanding demands by 
individuals to participate, is the best structure we currently have to be 
representative. 

In short, only the Council is a representative body and only Council task 
forces can determine consensus -- this is garbage and an insult to the 
General Assembly.

--
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