ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[wg-review]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Weinberg document



Thank you Chris for this message, I will add my few comments.

| Message-ID: <00f501c0763c$5c5714a0$c1128ed1@xmisp.com>
| From: "Chris McElroy" <watch-dog@inreach.com>
| To: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>
| Cc: <wg-review@dnso.org>
| Subject: Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Weinberg document
| Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 02:51:57 -0800
| 
| Now that I'm trying to be a much calmer me I have to tell you. That is
| something I would strongly support. A constituency, if we must have that
| system, for civil liberties and civil rights would satisfy me. Only one
| thing to add to that. This constituency have the ability to review
| allegations of injustice at the hands of WIPO and that it have some
| recourse
| if it finds that they have made a decision that violates the rights of an
| individual. Absent an appeals process, there is no recourse for many
| individuals. That in my opinion has to change.
| 
| Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
cf. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00554.html


3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC

Since the very beginning the question of relations between the DNSO GA and 
ICANN AtLarge arises. This is in my opinion due to the fact that the DNSO 
GA is the unique place within ICANN process which is really open to 
everybody, and that AtLarge needs a lot of work to became such. 
a. The ICANN AtLarge membership raised a lot of expectations within 
   Internet users. More and more of them are aware about Internet impact 
   on everything and everybody.
b. Initially estimated at 5 to 10 thousand, eventually 158 thousand 
   people answered the call to became an ICANN AtLarge member, then 
   elected 5 ICANN Directors.
c. AtLarge members are not provided adequate means of communication, either 
   between themselves, or within 5 elected ICANN AtLarge directors 
   (whatever efforts might be made by some of them individually). During 
   the AtLarge pre-election questions, the public and candidates were 
   separated and isolated into regional boxes. Whereas I consider that 
   geographical diversity is indeed one of the best decisions in the 
   ICANN international process, it should not have been used to split 
   members into non-communicating pre-electorate boxes.
d. Are the terms of reference for AtLarge Directors defined ? What are 
   the duties imposed on AtLarge Directors - shall they act focusing on
   individual Internet users ? Personally I believe that such shall be a 
   case. There is a lot of logic to that - with the exception of the DNSO 
   GA the consumer perspective is not mentionned in any SO's. If we focus 
   for example on the cost of Internet for individuals, the cost of 
   domain name or email address may be neglected as compared to the 
   telephone cost (or any ADSL cost). Just look on your telephone bill, 
   and if some of US or Canadian colleagues are lucky to have local 
   communications for 10 cents or less for unlimited duration, in Europe 
   the cost is horrendous, and by second. I do not know about any young
   people not being revolted against telcos, making profit by many 
   orders of magnitude superior to whatever Registrar or Registry. 
   If we focus on the IP numbers - several years ago it was expected 
   that with the Ipv6 each and every user will be served. Is this 
   expectation still true ? How the Ipv6 numbers distribution will 
   affect users - do you think it is only technical bothering matter 
   for ASO ? Who are the ICANN AtLarge Directors looking on the 
   Internet cost globally and from user consumer perspective ? 
   Shall the ICANN AtLarge Directors be helping to understand these matters ?

11. [IDNH] individual domain holder constituency, Report requested by WG-
Review Members

The IDNH DNSO Constituency is sometimes perceived as the panacea to the 
AtLarge and DNSO problems - I do not believe it shall be, as the consumer 
Internet perspective on ICANN is much larger than the domain names only.
But there are some issues focusing on the domain names itself, and 
therefore I am in favor of the IDNH constituency under some conditions.
I wish it to be an association of many associations of individuals.
I wish these group considers the very important issue, the status
of domain name and considers all hypothesis and impacts on global scale.
What if the status is property like a house or a land ? Usually there
is taxation when assets are sold ... What happen if people divorce 
and dispute about domain name ? How domain names could be inherited 
by children from parents ? And what if no designated heir ? Etc, etc. 
What if the status is just holder, like passport holder (you cannot sell it) ?

3bis. [Funding] ICANN Directors. ICANN and DNSO Cost and Funding

There is a cost of running associations, have meetings, reliable servers 
and mailing lists preserved over time.
There is a lot of wisdom in Peter de Blanc message
  http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00362.html
How raise funds ?

Kind regards,
Elisabeth Porteneuve

--
Trying to keep the record:
Summary of items by WG-REVIEW (see URL B. below):
1. [Charter] Review Process Background and Charter Discussion
2. [Outreach and DNSO] Report requested by NC
3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC
4. [GA] Report requested by NC
5. [Working Group] Report requested by NC
6. [Secretariat] Report requested by NC
7. [Names Council] Report requested by NC
8. [WG A, B, C and DNSO] Report requested by NC
9. [DNSO Quality] Report requested by NC
10. [The Board and DNSO] Report requested by NC
11. [IDNH] individual domain holder constituency, Report requested by WG-
Review Members
12. [STLD] specialized TLD constituency, Report requested by WG-Review 
Members
13. [DNSO/GA Chair election] Report requested by WG-Review Members
--

Important URLs relevant to the methodology of a Working Group:
1. 11 Aug 1999, David Johnson, 
   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-d/Arc00/msg00158.html
2. 13 Sep 1999, David Johnson,
   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-d/Arc00/msg00414.html
--

URLs relevant to the ICANN structure and Bylaws
1. ICANN structure http://www.icann.org/general/icann-org-chart_frame.htm
2. ICANN Bylaws http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm 

--
URLs relevant to the WG-REVIEW work plan:
A. 4 August 2000, Names Council Review Task Force list and archives are open
   http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/maillist.html
   
B. 4 December 2000, Theresa Swinehart, NC Review 2.0 Circulation for Comment
   http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/msg00071.html
   
C. 19 December 2000, DNSO Secretariat, NC telecon 19 Dec 2000
   http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20001219.NCtelecon-minutes.html
      Decision D4: 
      - establish a Review Working Group, chaired by Y.J. Park 
      - make the "terms of reference" "responding to the RTF questionnaire" 
      - make the lifetime of the WG January 15th 
      - ask the group to report by January 15th to the NC Review Task Force. 
      - issue a press release immediately to encourage participation in this WG. 
      
      The following members voted in favour: Chicoine, aus der Mühlen, 
      Roberts, Hotta, Harris, Cochetti, Sheppard, Swinehart (by proxy), 
      de Blanc (by proxy), Porteneuve, Kane, Stubbs (by proxy), 
      YJ Park (with the reserve that the given timeframe is too short 
      to accomplish this task properly). 
      
      Vandromme abstained. 
      
      Ph. Sheppard offered to draft the press release, to liase with 
      YJ Park and to ask Ken Stubbs as NC Chair (assuming availability) 
      to approve it on behalf of the NC. 
      
D. As an immediate action the WG Review list and archives are open
   on 19 December 2000.
   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/maillist.html

E. 21 December 2000, Philip Sheppard, Names Council Press Release 
   http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00060.html
   
F. 29 December 2000, Theresa Swinehart, Re: Press release - timeline
   http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/msg00077.html

G. 06 January 2000, Theresa Swinehart, Reminder and schedule on DNSO review
   http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/msg00078.html
--
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>