[wg-review] 11. IDNH - Clean Motion
> Motion by Chris McElroy & David Farrar > "The WG Review has reached a near consensus > >that a new Constituency be added to represent Individual Domain Name > >Registrants. This WG has not addressed the matter of how to implement this > new Constituency, neither has it proposed what group should represent them, nor > >how it is to be formed. We only present that one should be formed or > >selected within six months. > We specifically propose a dedicated working group be set up to come up with specific proposals and options > on the structure and functioning of the constituency. > > >We ask that this process be expedited in this > >way because we believe it to be an oversight not to have included them in > >the process from the beginning. Furthermore, we hope this matter would be put > on the agenda as a top priority and that public comment will be sought on how > this constituency shall be formed. > How an individual domain name registrants constituency shall contribute to the funding of ICANN and > the DNSO needs to be examined by the dedicated working group. There > is a view that such registrants already indirectly fund ICANN and DNSO > through their domain name fees which largely fund the Registrar, > Registry and ccTLD constituencies and this should be evaluated and > negotiated with those constituencies." > > Statement by Joop Teenstra> > > > >The @large is > > >1. a disorganized group of all Internet users' diverse interests. > > >2. without Charter or Mission statement > > >3. without means of the members to contact each other > > >4. subject to a Study that may reduce its representation on the Board or do > > >away with it altogether > > >5. represented by Directors that may be representing interests directly > > >opposed to typical DN holders' interests. > > >6. top-down and controlled by ICANN staff. > > >7. Unable to provide policy formulations to the ICANN Board > > > > > >An Individual Domain Name Owners constituency is: > > >1. formed naturally by people with a common interest-- bottom up and in > > >control of its own Charter and destiny > > >2. part of the DNSO where Domain Name Policy initiatives are developed > > >3. a place where any Domain Name Owner gets a chance to be part of the > > >policymaking process, (and get the results to the attention of the Board) > > >via its own elected officers > > >4. a counterweight in the DNSO, giving it an opportunity to be > considerably more legitimate than it is now. >
> > >
|