RE: [ga] Possible Agenda Items for General Assembly meeting

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 11:27 AM 15/07/1999 +0200, R.Gaetano@iaea.org wrote:
>Joop,
>
>You wrote:
>
>> 1.
>> The Individual Domain Name Owners' constituency requests of the General
>> Assembly of the DNSO and of the provisional Names Council to allow it's
>> elected
>> representatives to participate in the Names Council meetings and
>> deliberations,
>> at least as observers, until the ICANN Board has ratified the IDNO as a
>> constituency of the DNSO.
>> 
>> 2.
>> That the General Assembly, in order to achieve a balanced representation
>> of
>> all
>> stakeholder interests, recommends to the ICANN Board that the IDNO be
>> immediately recognised as a legitimate constituency of the DNSO, 
>> 
>I second that.
>I think that the individual name holders could add a different POV to the
>discussion, and that this will make the debate more complete.
>
Thank you Roberto. I hope you second both 1 and 2.
Point 1 is actually the more important point. 

Whether the existing GA, who is made up largely of interests who, to put it
mildly, do not have the individual DN owners' interests at heart,
recommends or co-opts the IDNO constituency  is neither here nor there. 
The ICANN board has to see that it is necessary to have this constituency,
that's enough.
Perversely, the more opposition there would be from an unbalanced GA, the
more evidence that would be for the necessity of the IDNO's inclusion.

>This said, when we were in Berlin, it seems to me that people there had
>mixed feelings (or where undecided) about the addition of this constituency.
>Therefore, I think that we should focus in building the case for the IDNO.
>Just to ask for recognition without doing this will result in the proposal
>not to be accepted.
>
Correct. The GA should make our case by opposing our participation.
As the show of hands evidenced, about 1/3 of those physically present
opposed our entry.
That should be enough to necessitate our presence in the eyes of an ICANN
board that is serious about the demands of the White Paper.


>> 3. That no policy recommendations are made by the Names Council, until a
>> balanced representation of all stakeholder interests is achieved. 
>> 
>If this means to wait until the individual DNH constituency is recognized, I
>am strongly against this.

It does not need to mean that, Roberto. If we can participate on a
provisional basis, at least out POV can be heard and perhaps the worst
mistakes could be prevented from being made.

>There will be in the future even more constituencies that will ask
>recognition, and we cannot establish a precedent in blocking the activity of
>the DNSO untill this process is finished. 

It is not a precedent to be afraid of. It is called putting a sound
foundation under a policy of consensus. Real consensus.
If there is a rough balance of interests in the DNSO now, future
constituencies that are not even on the horizon do not need to hold up the
progress of decisionmaking.
But ours is there. It has been knocking on a closed door since Singapore.

Also, what if the GA votes against
>point 2? Will we prevented from making any policy recommendation *forever*?
>

If the GA would vote against point 2, the more the ICANN board should be
made aware that something intolerable is occurring.  
Ultimately, the constituencies are *its* decision.   A positive vote in the
GA will only be of help to start a more constructive dialogue with the DN
registrants. 


>About the Non-Com constituency, it is a different ball game.

It is indeed.

>This is a constituency that makes part of the initial ICANN plan for the
>DNSO, and just the lack of consensus, or insufficient mediation capacity, or
>whatever, has prevented it from having its own reps to the interim Council.
>
>Personally, I would suggest that the interim Council wait to forward policy
>recommandations until all seven initial constituencies are in place, and
>represented by their "permanent" representatives to the Council.
>
Agreed. To let people speak for them, who have no mandate to speak can be
worse than denying a constituency it's rights altogether.


--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  , bootstrap  of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org