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

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Cindy,
everywhere you have an offer and a demand. The ICANN has been created to
manage the offer (Board and SO). Then some aspects of the demand (users)
came up and were by a huge mistake hosted by the DNSO (this was the Irish
Plan by Dennis Jennings if I am correct). As you may recall, a statement by
Joe Sims the ICANN legal consultant made it plain, explaining that the DNSO
differed from the other SOs for that reason.(Has been publish here, but there
are many more).

This is the whole problem of the ICANN as it has many other impacts.

This problem is progressively corrected in having the offer (SO) with 9 seats
and the demand (the user=@large) 9 seats at the BoD. The @large definition
and the bylaws modifications to welcome @large properly are to be handled
by the @large Study Group over 2001 and 2002. This is a very complex task,
which also includes the removal from the DNSO of all the @large concerns.

The real role of this WG-Review is to explain how remove from the DNSO the
@large aspects to make the DNSO a fair, qualified and professionnal Support
Organization able to act as a competent consultant for the BoD, as the other
SO do (ASO, PSO, SSRAC, etc...). (cf. Karl's mail) It should obviously
coordinate with the @large study group with the same clean sheet approach,
the same time frame, the same capacity to propose the necessary bylaws
adaptations.

The problem is that only a few understood that and are leading the ICANN in
the right direction. The NC seem not to have understood it yet and plays
against its own interests. Old errors are very difficult to understand, accept
and correct. But progress is obviously made through comments like yours.

The result is that the true DNSO needs a decision process totally different 
from
the @large and from the passed DNSO. Its "consensus" is about having made
sure that it reports all the technical disagreements as well as it proposes 
and
qualifies all the possible different options to help the BoD decision. It 
does not
decide anything. 15 qualified experts of different origins can be enough to
present a valid representative report to the BoD.

The vote of demands to support the prioritized possibly conflicting interests
of the stakeholder belongs to the @large. Millions of people should be
involved in an election processus to obtain a fair vote of such demands.
There are several schemes investigated which leads to possible new
conceptions of the ICANN.

You understand why several oldtimers have difficulties with that as they
have obviously to chose on which side they are and show their qualifications.
Many claiming self-representing the market to "advise" the BoD. Now the
BoD wants qualified reponses and to end with "reports" that it must ask
the staff and external consultants to make again.

This is why it is quite fun to ask about the definition of the domain name
within the DNSO with most of the people not even understanding the
problem. In a few months it will be a much debated question among
DNSO experts: lawyers, gramarians, developpers, politics, managers ....

Jefsey

PS. DNSO is very simple, when considering the key issue: IP addressing.
There is till a lot to do.

On 03:33 08/01/01, Cindy Merry said:
>Have looked through Elisabeth's posting and found many relevant questions.
>I've added a few of my own.  I apologize for the length.
>
>Cindy Merry
>
>
>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.
>
>(Cindy Merry writes)  I'd like to know how more and more Internet users are
>becoming aware about ICANN?  What method does ICANN use to communicate with
>Internet users?
>
>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.
>
>(Cindy Merry writes)  Again how did the 158 thousand people know to answer
>the call and how did they select the 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.
>
>(Cindy Merry writes)  If communication is done through a method like this
>WG, it would drive the normal person crazy.  I normally get 15 to 20
>e-mails a day.  This WG has filled my special folder for WG Review every
>day and requires intense concentration .  Trying to absorb every comment in
>every posting has been extremely trying.  Is there a specific method of
>bringing appropriate concerns to the AtLarge population?  Who defines what
>the specific concerns are and also keeps the "conversation" on target? How
>does the AtLarge representatives talk with their "constituents"?  Even in
>the US we don't expect every Senator/Representative to individually
>communicate to every constituent every issue.  Maybe we need to add to the
>overall suggestions a method (I don't have the method figured out) to
>publicize better what is being presented and decided by ICANN.
>
>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.
>
>(Cindy Merry writes)  Focusing on the consumer perspective would be nice
>and probably forward thinking.  The problem that has been discussed
>repeatedly in this WG is which "consumers" carry more weight and have a
>more vested interest in these decisions.  As an individual and a small
>business my concerns usually match up, however if you look at those making
>a "living off the internet" they appear to want different results than
>someone like me.
>
>(Elisabeth continues)    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) ?
>
>(Cindy Merry writes)  Probably why this WG has spent a lot of time talking
>about what a domain name is and if it is owned or held.  Until I read the
>different opinions stated in this posting I would have assumed that I owned
>my domain name with it's TLD until it was time to renew - a lot like
>copyrights but with a shorter period of time.  I know that I agree with
>protecting a trademarked name up to a point but can't say that I appreciate
>people holding names they're not using and then trying to sell them to me
>or my clients for huge amounts of money.  This is a pointless and greedy
>strategy.  A domain name should be for communication purposes...a simple
>way for an Internet traveler to find what they are looking for and not a
>deceptive name that leads you where you don't want to go.  A perfect
>example happened to my client, a physical business called the "Branson
>Mall".  When we went to get a domain name to create a site, the name had
>been scooped up by someone who than offered to sell it to us for a price
>that could go from $ 8,000.00 and up.  We didn't pay it and we didn't fight
>it, we just found a different name that is not as appropriate and not as
>easily found by our customers.  Who got hurt?  Our customers and our
>business, and the effective use of the Internet.
>
>
>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 ?
>
>(Cindy Merry writes)  Of course the problem with this is I would pay $ 25
>to participate, but what about the age-old problem of those who can't
>afford to pay but still want to participate?  If the Internet is a business
>concern we can all understand the pay to play concept.  If the Internet is
>something new that goes beyond a simple business than we've probably got to
>find a  way to keep from turning it into the age old "the one with the most
>money wins".  On the other hand, it does cost money to run associations,
>preserve mailing lists, etc. and few would be willing to volunteer to such
>a daunting task.  So balancing the needs of funding with the desire to have
>as many people participate as possible becomes a fundamental point in
>governing from the ground up.
>
>
>
>--
>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

--
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