[ifwp] Re: Monterrey Report

["Martin B. Schwimmer" <martys@interport.net>]

>X-Sender: martys@pop.interport.net
>Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 17:48:49 -0500
>To: IFWP Discussion List <list@ifwp.org>
>From: "Martin B. Schwimmer" <martys@interport.net>
>>It will be reflected in the minutes of the Monterrey meeting that at one
>point, a measure which received a majority vote but not "hum" consensus,
>equally apportioned the votes among all constituencies.  As Mr. Stefferud
>characterized that proposal, the "equal representation model" sought to
>equally distribute our ignorance of the future (I may be misquoting him).
>IMHO, time was spent at the Monterrey meeting debating voting distribution
>(with the resultant horse trading), at the expense of drafting mechanisms
>which would guarantee a fair shake among all stakeholders (i.e. fair
>hearing panels, due process).  The DNSO proposal eventually accepted by the
>Board should have the support of all the stakeholders - instead of scaring
>away key stakeholders with thoughts of an automatic minority share, instead
>create a structure that will sell all stakeholders on a DNSO that is not
>"captured" by individual constituencies.
>
>
>
>>There seems to be a lot of confusion about the role of SOs, so in the
>>interests of clearing that up, here is a short report on the
>>Monterrey meeting.  This is not official -- it is purely my own personal 
>>take on developments.  Note that the meeting notes are now posted on the 
>>www.dnso.org web site:
>>
>>The DNSO is not a separate organization from ICANN, but instead is
>>something like a subcommittee of ICANN.  While the matter wasn't
>>discussed heavily, there was fairly broad consensus that the DNSO
>>should not separately incorporate.  [Indeed, there is a cogent
>>interpretation of the ICANN bylaws that mandates that the SOs not be
>>separate legal entities.]
>>
>>A further consensus item was that the DNSO does not of itself provide
>>significant funding to ICANN.  One has to be very careful to explain
>>this, however, because it is easy to misinterpret statements in this
>>area: It is obvious that since the DNSO is not a separate legal
>>entity it cannot of itself invoice other parties -- all funds
>>collected in the name of the DNSO will in fact, of course, be paid to
>>ICANN.  However, the funds that are billed as "membership fees in the 
>>DNSO" will be earmarked to cover the expenses of running the DNSO, 
>>and not used to provide support to ICANN for maintaining the root 
>>servers, or other ICANN provided services.  Instead, it is imagined 
>>that registries and possibly registrars will have a direct contract 
>>with ICANN (probably a standard contract), and that funds collected 
>>from those sources will be used to support most of the services of 
>>ICANN. 
>>
>>A further corollary of the "not a separate organization" model is 
>>that members of the DNSO *are* members of ICANN.  Whether they are 
>>the same as the hypothetical At Large membership of ICANN or not is 
>>unknown.
>>
>>Membership in the DNSO is open to any legally constituted
>>organization or natural person (some form of authentication will be
>>required).  The basic yearly membership fee is imagined to be in the
>>range of $10-$100 US. 
>>
>>The DNSO starts out with 6 sub-groups called "constituencies".  They
>>are: Registries; Registrars; Infrastructure and connectivity
>>providers; General organizations; Trademark Interests; and the At
>>Large constituency.  Any entity not in one of the other
>>constituencies is automatically a member of the At Large
>>constituency.  There are no further requirements for being a member
>>of the At Large constituency; the other constituencies, however, are
>>free within limits to define their own membership rules, and possibly
>>additional fees. 
>>
>>The "Names Council" is a executive body of the DNSO with certain as
>>yet not well defined powers.  The NC currently is defined to have 21
>>members.  The NC will probably act as a nominating committee for the
>>ICANN board nominees; the DNSO membership, in an as yet undefined
>>manner, will probably elect the DNSO ICANN board nominees. 
>>
>>Each constituency, including the At Large, nominates individuals to 
>>serve as their representatives on the Names Council, in the 
>>following proportions:
>>
>>Registries: 6; Registrars: 3; Infrastructure: 3; General Org: 3; TM:
>>3; At Large: 3. 
>>
>>[The imbalance in the "Registry" constituency was the single most
>>contentious issue at the meeting, and was a short-sighted, devisive
>>proposal by an organized group of registry representatives.  Their
>>original proposal was argued against very strongly, and in my opinion
>>the fact that the registries managed to get extra representation was
>>purely a function of the fact that the registries were by far the
>>single largest constituency represented at MTY -- there is no
>>objective justification for registries having a larger number of
>>representatives.  This is so obvious that I think that ICANN will
>>rectify the imbalance before the DNSO application is accepted.]
>>
>>There is a complicated set of voting rules that embodies the
>>allocations above, and that also ensure balanced regional
>>representation.  These rules weren't particularly controversial, just
>>complicated, so I won't describe them here. 
>>
>>I mentioned that the attendance at the meeting was rather one-sided
>>-- this problem was recognized by all, even the registry
>>representatives.  The fact that even with this imbalance real 
>>progress is being made speaks well for the resilience of the 
>>process, IMO.
>>
>>-- 
>>Kent Crispin, PAB Chair			"No reason to get excited",
>>kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
>>PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
>>http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
>>
>>__________________________________________________
>>To receive the digest version instead, send a
>>blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
>>
>>To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
>>subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>>
>>To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
>>unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
>>
>>Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
>>___END____________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>"Before enlightenment, chop wood and draw water, after enlightenment, chop
>wood and draw water.  Your mileage may vary."
>
>__________________________________________________
>To receive the digest version instead, send a
>blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
>
>To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
>subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
>unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
>
>Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
>___END____________________________________________
>
>
>
"Before enlightenment, chop wood and draw water, after enlightenment, chop
wood and draw water.  Your mileage may vary."