Re: DNSO and Democracy

["J. William Semich (NIC JWS7)" <bsemich@mail.nu>]

Hello Kent;

I don't know what you have against registries per se, or why you have to
make registries into the "bad guys" but I do think it is important to
keep the record straight.

In fact, the 13 registries who voted for 6 regiostries to be on the
Names Council (or Exec. committee) at the second-day meeting in
Monterrey (representing mostly non-european ccTLD registries, actually)
put forward a compromise DNSO exec. committee membership composition to
be made up of *3* ccTLD Registries (of the 240 active) and *3* gTLD
registries (with one, NSI, currently active, and others to come, perhaps
CORE being one). We were looking towards having an equal 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
representaion model for the constituencies on the Names Council.

And the origin of the number "6" registries? Amadeu proposed it, as a
lower-numbered starting point for registries than the high of 8 that
Bernie had proposed. (see below for  excerpts of *your* meeting notes on
your web site at
http://songbird.com/bdekot67/MTY-notes/notes2clean.txt). 

This number was approved by almost-consensus vote ( 22 in favor, 6
against) once it was modified to include equal Trade Mark
representation. And throughout the votes, the word "compromise" was on
everyone's lips about the results - not "forcing."

The numbers below are the three proposed constituency representation
proportions which we voted on for the Names Council (or Exec. committee)
of the DNSO (in order) for Registries, Registrars, ISPs, Business, TM
interests and At-Large:

 --- Excerpted from Kent's Notes from the 11/16/98 Monterrey Meeting --

"Model 1: 2 2 2 2 2 2:
   12 for; 16 against; 2 abstain

Model 2: 6[3 ccTLD+3 gTLD Registries] 3 3 3 1 3:
   20 for; 7 against; 3 abstain

Model 3: 30% 10% 25% 15% 5% 15%:
   3 for; 25 against; 3 abstain

How many  people represent ccTLDs: 13

Antony: suggests giving 3 for TMs and
voting again.....

[Final Tally]

Modified model 2a. 6 3 3 3 3 3
     22 for; 6 no; 3 abstain

[and then Kent concludes in his notes:]

This was the best we could do on the day (strong support, but no
consensus call) That is, it was realized that these were 
contentious issues, and that we probably could not finally resolve them"

This was where we thought the process would move forward, but the
Washington meeting changed all that.

I sure hope we can now move forward from here and build on what we have
on the table now.

Best wishes,

Bill Semich (NIC JWS7)
bsemich@mail.nu
.NU Domain (Niue, The South Pacific)


In reply to 7 Feb message from Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>:

>On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 02:59:02PM -0400, J. William Semich (NIC
>JWS7) wrote: 
>> Hello Javier;
<snip>
>> With the exception of a few private busnesses with their own
interests
>> at the fore, and who have pushed for some of the elements that ended
up
>> in the Washington Draft, I haven't seen anyone successfully 
"stacking
>> the deck" in the DNSO process, at any of the drafting meetings, or at
>> the meetings I attended in Barcelona or Monterrey.

>Who are you trying to fool? At both the Barcelona and Monterrey 
>meetings registry interests were the single largest constituency 
>present, and there was a consistent thrust to stack things to
>favor registries.  The most egregious example was in Monterrey,
>where registry interests voted in a block to force the 6
>representatives for registries on the Names Council.  

>But such behavior has been a consistent pattern throughout.  The 
>so-called "Boston Ad-Hoc group" came to Monterrey with a demand 
>that registries have *half* the votes on the Names Council, Bernie
>Turcotte presented his proposal in Barcelona that gave the
>registries 8 reps, etc etc.  The registries, at least some of
>them, have been playing a consistent game of raw power politics
>throughout. 


>-- 
>Kent Crispin, PAB Chair				"Do good, and you'll be 
>kent@songbird.com				lonesome." -- Mark Twain