Re: do we want to have constituency meetings in singapore next month?

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 14:57 12/02/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
>Andrew Q. Kraft, MAIP, Executive Director a écrit:
>> 
>> Chon and all,
>> 
>> While not OPPOSED, personally, to a meeting of constituencies, keep in mind
>> that at this point, there are TWO proposals for the DNSO, and only ONE
>> defines which constituencies there will be. 
>
>I'm glad Andrew pointed this out. I was a little concerned, myself,
>when I saw Chon's agenda, because it seemed to be automatically
>accepting that there were constituencies, something that's far from
>agreed upon by the Paris draft supporters, myself included. Andrew's
>intelligent suggestion on how to proceed at Singapore has my full
>support, with one proviso: I don't think negotiations should be held
>with the idea that the two drafts must be merged, but rather with
>the idea that their sponsors will try to find a compromise.

I  go along with much of this thinking.

After
>all, there's certainly nothing that says there can't remain two
>proposals, and let ICANN decide what to do about it. 
>

My problem with that is, that the choice would be (another) major policy
decision by an ICANN without a membership.
It is the DNSO that has to drive ICANN policymaking.
If there is "the" DNSO, this DNSO with have a strong authority and the
legitimacy to do so.

I'm afraid the pressure to come to a compromise and *not* leave the
decision to ICANN  will be intense.
Please consider that the drafts for the DNSO  bylaws should not be about
some personalities imposing their philosophies on others (at best) or
interests trying to gain an advantage (at worst), but about creating a fair
and workeable structure for DN stakeholders to represent themselves on the
ICANN board and to advise it on Domain policy. 
A structure to outlast the present division of powers and personalities.  A
public vote can later endorse the compromise.
 
>When it comes to the real stickers - constituencies, trademark
>voting separate from business voting, and the registry split and
>veto power - it might be best not to remove all wording that
>receives opposition and allow ICANN to broker a compromise, since we
>can't (and there's no real need to) guess what ICANN will approve.
>
ICANN cannot fulfill the role of honest broker until it has gained the full
confidence of the parties in the debate.
Before that, it can only play the controversial role of "adult supervision".

That said, I agree with Stef on this worrisome point:
>PS: Given the draconian nanture fo the ICANN Guidles for NSI "test"
>    Registrars, and the strong possibility that ICANN plans to impose
>    all of those guidelines on all registries and registrars in the
>    future, I think that the DNSO should be claming more power to
>    oppose ICANN than either draft currently claims...\s

Notice Stef's "the" DNSO.
 
Oh, and if I can't make it myself to Singapore to say so F2F, I would like
to urge the Paris draft team and all its supporters not to yield on 
1. No startup constituencies
2. the Center of Power lies in the General Assembly of members.
3. members are DN owners.

If you give that away, the world's DN owners are going to feel very insecure.
--Joop--
http://www.democracy.org.nz/model.html