RE: [dnso.discuss] Re: do we want to have constituency meetings

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

Well said Ellen. 

I'd like to add some additional comments and a question of my own.

On 13-Feb-99 Ellen Rony wrote:
>  Well, since you asked, my short answer is NO.
>  
>  Kilnam Chon wrote:
> > our question/suggestion is "do we want to hold preliminary DNSO
> > constituency
> > meetings on 1999.3.4?" if we do, then some constituencies would meet in the
> > morning or afternoon in parallel on 1999.3.4.  For example,
> >
> >         Morning                 Afternoon
> >
> >         ISP & Connectivity      Business
> >         Registry                Registrar
> >         Trademark               Non-commercial
>  
>  This idea smacks of hubris -- deja vu all over again for those who watched
>  the IAHC/CORE/PAC/PAB debacle.
>  
>  ICANN has NOT annointed any DNSO, and the TWO proposals submitted on
>  February4 and 5 differ on the issue of constituencies.
>  
>  Unless you are wedded to a zero-sum game, the prudent course would be to
>  use the Singapore time to discuss the constituency issue among proponents
>  of BOTH proposals.  Frankly, I think you have to figure out how you
>  identify and validate DNSO membership before you decide how or whether to
>  splinter it up into constituencies.
>  
>  And by the way, let me say AGAIN that
>  *  trademark and business are both commercial constituencies
>  *  registry, registrar and ISP/Connectivity are all infrastructure
>  constituencies
>
>  The DNSO.ORG proposal groups non-commercial uses of the Internet
>  (education, public advocacy, religious, personal, non profit) into ONE
>  constituency with 3
>  members on the names Council.  5/6 of the representation (15 members of the
>  Names Council) are allotted to operators with a commercial agenda (if
>  registries and registrars are for profit)
>  
>  If there's a separate constituency for trademark owners (which I don't
>  think should occur) then there must be a separate constituency for
>  education.

This is the fundamental problem I have with the WMB Draft.  If you are going to
define narrow constituencies, than all the constituencies must be so narrowly
defined.  Otherwise, you are placing the power in the hands of the narrow
constituencies (in this case the trademark and commercial) at the expense of
the broader constituencies (non commercial users/non-trademark holding domain
name holders).
  
>  And if registries, registrars and ISPs are each given individual
>  constituencies, then non-profit organizations, educational institutions,
>  public advocacy groups, the religious sector, and personal users would all,
>  likewise, be different constituencies.  And none of this constituency-based
>  approach reflects real percentage use use of the Internet.
>  
>  My point is that this pie has many ways to slice it, which is where I see
>  some intractible differences.  Before you slice the pie, you have to have
>  everyone come to the table.

We may have to accept initially define constituencies in a compromise proposal,
Ellen.  I'd like to hear your opinion of what initial constituencies you think
would be acceptable and also prevent capture by any one interest?

For example, should we define 4 or 5 very broad constituencies or 12 to 15
narrowly defined constituencies?  


----------------------------------
E-Mail: William X. Walsh <william@dso.net>
Date: 13-Feb-99
Time: 14:51:49
----------------------------------
"We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes
of lawyers, hungry as locusts." 
- Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977