Re: [ifwp] Re: Monterrey Report

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Martin and all,

  It is unfortunate that the proposed "DNSO" at www.dnso.org has yet to define
how completely its structure will prevent "Capture" by certain groups or
parties.  See: http://www.dnso.org/docs/draft2-3-final.html.  As appendix B
is yet to be defined.

  However this draft, is a great improvement ins some ways than the first
draft.

Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:

> 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____________________________________________

 Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208