RE: DNSO / Fluid Constituencies

[Roberto Gaetano <Roberto.Gaetano@etsi.fr>]

Bret,

You wrote:

	<snip>

> I noted the proposal in the draft DNSO applications that the DNSO would 
> be bound by the same transparency rules governing ICANN itself, but I was 
> hoping for more. The ICANN concept of transparency (even as recently 
> modified) is still the subject of some debate as to its adequacy, and I 
> was hopeful (and still am) that this group can to do better. My reading 
> of the ICANN bylaws suggests that the SOs must be transparent, but there 
> is nothing to prevent them from being *more* transparent than ICANN 
> itself.
> 
IMHO, there are many reasons for making the DNSO *very* transparent, and
don't stop to the level of transparency currently being implemented for
ICANN. For instance:

- DNSO will be a more controversial body than ICANN. ICANN has signed a MoU
with USG, which gives them the sanction and guarantee, the DNSO is
potentially chosen by ICANN among multiple alternative applications, and
this will require not only an effort to bring "in" everybody who may feel
"left out", but also evidence of non-discriminatory practices in the
operation of the body (i.e. "transparency").

- DNSO will take the most critical decisions in the Internet, like the
expansion of the Domain Name Space. These decisions are in principle open to
lawsuits. This risk will be greatly reduced (or, at least, the risk of
losing a lawsuit will be greatly reduced) by more transparency in
operations.

- ICANN, as umbrella-organization, has to set the minimum requirements,
valid for everybody. DNSO must obey these requirements, but can easily
further progress on this way.

All this long post just to say that I agree with you ;>).

Regards
Roberto