Re: [nc-review] NC review -- Draft Criteria for newConstituencies

["Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>]

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.

>>> "aus der Muhlen, Axel" <Axel_ausderMuhlen@mpaa.org> 08/15/01 20:30 PM >>>


Philip,

Following below is a first draft of criteria (which are put in the form of questions) for new constituencies.  I will post the text also to the virtual workroom.

Axel



1.  What need would the proposed new constitency fill, and what alternative means are there of filling it?  What would the proposed new constituency bring to the DNSO that is now lacking?  Are there alternative means of achieving it besides recognition of a new constituency?  Are there other places within the ICANN structure (e.g.,
other SO's) where this goal could be fulfilled?

2.  What commonality of interest would the members of the proposed new constituency share?

3.  How representative of this common interest would the proposed new constituency be?
   
4.  What steps have the proponents of the proposed new constituency taken to
     (a)  organize the proposed new constituency;
     (b) document the need for the proposed new constituency;
     (c) seek support from existing constituencies; and
     (d) guarantee representativeness and openness within the proposed new constituency?

5.  Has the proposed new constituency demonstrated the capability to meet the financial, person-power, and other obligations that other constituencies must meet?

6.  What would be the impact of recognition of the proposed new constituency on the
existing constituencies?  What would be the impact (e.g., financial, administrative) on the DNSO of recognition of the proposed new constituency?

7.  How much overlap in membership is there likely to be between the proposed new constituency and existing constituencies, or the General Assembly?
  
8.   What impact would recognition of the proposed new constituency have on the stability and procedural regularity of DNSO activities?