Re: the Individual Domain Name Owners constituency

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

Joop and all,

Joop Teernstra wrote:

At 18:57 11/04/99 -0400, Michael Sondow wrote:

>
>I may have gone too far, and I apologize for whatever in my reply
>could have been construed as a personal attack.

O.K. Apology accepted.

But however much I
>may like you personally, what you are doing is divisive. Even while
>I agree with you theoretically, it seems to me that we must deal
>with the present reality and not try too hard to remake it as we
>might wish it to be, if we are to be effective.
>

Michael, in the DNSO there is no hard reality yet. We are being asked by
the ICANN interim Board to help shape reality there.

  Well I suppose this depends on what you call a reality.  In
accordance with the ICANN Interim Board the DNSO has been adopted.
To the ICANN that is reality.  As to the Stakeholder community,
that is
potentially another matter.  The problem here is that what the
ICANN
Interim Board did was NOT a consensus decision in Singapore.
They also made this decision without quantifying it so as to KNOW if
their
is a consensus, which we all know that there was not.  The crux
of that decision that the ICANN Interim Board made is that they allowed
an potentially illegal model for the DNSO (Built in constituencies)
to be adopted.  This will haunt the ICANN later, not to mention
the
DNSO itself.  In addition the ICANN Interim Board has continually
violated the Requirements of the White Paper with respect to
"Botttom-up", openess, Transparency, and Accountability as
Ellen Rony and many others have pointed out.
>  
> This is how I read their webpage and Esther's exhortations.
> You are most welcome to disagree with me and all those who support
> groupings that try to span across these damned constituencies in the
> DNSO.
> That will force us to keep our  thinking sharp.
  The problem here is that it doesn't take allot of thinking to see
that what
the ICANN and the now adopted DNSO is doing or attempting to do
is fundamentally wrong and likely not legal either.  Time will
tell on the
latter...

 

<snip>
>
>I was content with the creation of a non-commercial constituency,
>not because I see the interests of the ICIIU as being allied only
>with those of non-commercial entities, but because it seemed to
>encourage the participation of all those entities that have so far
>been excluded
>from the debate: schools, libraries, community groups, artistic and
>cultural public benefit organizations, and the like. And I felt that
>in the end it was best for us all if, rather than seeking refuge in
>a home made for dissidents, as a constituency for individuals would
>surely become, my colleagues from the commercial sector joined the
>other constituencies and influenced them. I still believe this.
>
I am not at all against such a constituency in the DNSO. I welcome it. It
will be an ally in many battles to come.

What I am against is the limited number of startup constituencies and the
(unintended?) effect of keeping a lot of people out, who are neither
comfortable in a "business" constituency nor qualify for a NCDNHC .

  ANY constituencies as a part of the DNSO model or bylaws
is
fundamentally WRONG...   Duhhhh!

 

--Joop--
http://www.democracy.org.nz/
 
 

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