RE: [wg-review] 11. IDNH

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Joana,
On 22:15 15/01/01, Joanna Lane said:
>Sotiris,
>The second poll seems to me to show that (more or less) the same people who
>would vote to abolish the DNSO constituencies given the choice, would
>equally vote to have one for individuals if the other objective were not
>possible. I believe even Karl has supports this position. Would you really
>want to block any representation whatsoever for individuals until the
>objective of dismantling the DNSO had been achieved, even if that were to
>take more than 2 years (giving time for the 'Large study had been completed
>etc.)?

Unfortunately:

1. there are two years that this is being used
2. the possible creation of an IDNH constituency would increase the 
strenght of the constituency model
3. the real problem of individual domain name registrants is that whatever 
new threads comes onto them they are not protected but agressed by the 
existing constituency model. If you do not believe me think about two other 
big compeonents of the ICANN: @large who are still contained within the 
DNSO and have a 2 years long possible process to become acknowledged, and 
the ccTLDs who pay half the budget (through the DNSO system they are not 
even getting represented at the BoD).

What is the use of all your great dedication to fight what you want to 
protect? If the ccTLD DNSO and the @large DNSO current model continue, 
there will not be anymore ICANN soon, may be months or even weeks. And you 
know that. ICANN is the only model where IDNH may be protected. So our 
first target is not to help people getting a seat at a committee, it is to 
protect the very ICANN itself.

A very large part of the Members of htis WG-Review have left and most of 
them have not voted. Greg has been elected by 15% of the people. This call 
for two main questions: one) is "common democracy" as people think it a 
rreal model since you can hardly call 15% or even 49% of the voters and 39% 
of the votes a real majority (I think we have to uncover the rules of the 
net-democracy, as it took many centuries to discover the existing 
prevailing democratic rules);  two) is our own existing common practice a 
way to deal with a problem the good way reach that democracy when people 
vote first with their feet?

>Suggestion:- If we were to replace the word "added" with "formed" in the
>Chris McElroy/ David Farrar Motion, would this remove your doubts? Then
>there would be no possible implied endorsement of existing failings of DNSO
>Constituency Structure, while still allowing the idea of a constituency, any
>constituency to go forward, with or without DNSO, with or without NC.  We
>can leave that part to further WG-Review to work out the form etc. as per
>the rest of the motion. If not, what is your suggestion?

That suggestion is certainly a good move. May be will you do an equivalent 
one to me instead of keeping hurting me :-).
But unfortunately we are here in the area of consensus. Consensus means to 
uncover pre-existing agreements. And we have clearly identified that we 
have an absolute disagreement. Not on the target (a fair concern about the 
interests of the idn registrants) but on the way to reach it. As - as many 
others and you initially - I identify that *your approach* (unfortunately) 
are their main thread, and you probably think with Greg that mine is their 
main thread.

Whatever the reasons, the only consensus we can reach and it is our duty as 
a consulting body (cf. bylaws) to report is:

"
1. there is a consensus on the need to see the individual domain name 
holdeship specifically considered at the same level as other large groups 
of domain names registrants, registrars and registries forming the DNSO.

2. There is a consensus on the fact that most of the problems of the DNSO come
     - basically form the lack of work on the technical and legal reality 
of the domain name
     - acceidentally from the constituency system imposed to its main SIGs

3. there is an irreductible disagreement between:

    a) those who think that the constituency system must be removed first 
through a modification in the bylaws and then to be carried a serious joint 
study with the all the concerned parties including the @large Study Group 
over the two years to come (the planed duration of that group),

    b) those who want a long and complex process to be started within the 
existing constituency model to respresent the individual domain name 
registrants interests.
"

I think you can accept that, I think I can accept it.

Jefsey



>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
>Behalf Of Sotiropoulos
>Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 3:49 PM
>To: Eric Dierker
>Cc: Greg Burton; wg Review list
>Subject: Re: [wg-review] 11. IDNH
>
>
>1/15/01 12:24:05 PM, Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM> wrote:
>
> >These are seperate and distinct consensus's.  Let us not sidetrack the
>first one and mose forward seperately on the second.
>
>Why not?  The questions in the first survey "consensus" did not include the
>question of whether the constituency system was acceptable to begin with.
>It was just assumed, out of hand and de facto.  The second poll shows that
>this was a mistake.
>
>Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>            Hermes Network, Inc.
>
>
> >Sotiropoulos wrote:
> >
> >> 1/15/01 10:05:12 AM, Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >It seems clear that there is widespread - almost consensus - support for
>us
> >> >to recommend a constituency of some kind here.
> >>
> >> Actually Greg, I'd say that there was more widespread support for the
>dissolution of the constitency structure.  In fact it appears to be a
>majority, check
>it
> >> out: http://pollcat.com/Lite/report.asp?report=report/tzk27voon5_a
> >>
> >> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> >>           Hermes Network, Inc.
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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
>
>--
>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