Re: [wg-review] Preliminary Report - 11. IDNH

[Bret Busby <bret@clearsol.iinet.net.au>]

Greg Burton wrote:
> 
> Preliminary Report on a constituency for individuals - WG-Review
> 
> This is a preliminary report, and has not been reviewed by the membership
> before submission. While the poll material is public and reflects as much
> objectivity as possible, the opinions and conclusions drawn are the views
> of the author, and cannot be called "the results of the group" until the
> group has discussed and ratified them and any changes that may be
> incorporated.
> 
> Material comes from group discussions and two polls - one run through
> pollcat.com, and one run in a voting booth  designed for more secure results.
> 
> Among the questions referred to this WG by the task force is the question:
> 
> Should there be a constituency for individuals?
> 
> Of the 31 respondents, 29 answered "yes". In a similar poll run in the more
> secure polling booth, 37 of 40 respondents answered affirmitavely. Due to the
> volume of material presented on this issue, it was requested and approved as
> it's own topic in the report format by the WG.
> 
> -------------------------------------
> The following material has not been formally voted on at this juncture.
> While it appears to have wide support, until such a vote is completed,
> it cannot be considered either a majority position or a consensus.
> 
> 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 clarifying the difference between an IDNH as a
> constituency of the DNSO and at-large membership in ICANN
> 
> 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.
> -----------
> Greg Burton
> 

I am confused by the above.

In the poll question that is stated, just above the first solid line,
relating to a new constituency for individuals, in the context of the
rest of the message above, is the result taken to mean support for a
constituency of individuals, or, of individual name owners?

Clarification, please.

Thanks in anticipation.

-- 

Bret Busby

Armadale, West Australia

......................................
"So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the
answer means."
 - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 - Douglas Adams, 1988 
......................................
--
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