Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Discussion
At 05:47 AM 1/27/01, Babybows.com wrote: In an earlier post Greg has written, Because the IDNH question has been broken out and the motion passed by this WG to create a working group on the topic has been presented to the NC, I believe it would be more fruitful at this time to leave this out of the discussion . If the NC has acted favorably upon the motion, I would agree; please advise has the NC taken any action in this regard? If not, may we proceed to discussion of IDNH? Danny, The NC is in the process of scheduling a special teleconference meeting to address three main issues - the ccTLD proposal, the IDNH working group proposal, and the budget. The intent, as I heard it, was to have this teleconference take place either next week or the week after. My impression is that they want to do something, but we'll see. The GA presented a motion to do this at Marina Del Rey, and the motion was made again (and seconded) on the GA list in late November. The GA chair has done nothing with this, not even acknowledging on the list that it was received. The WG motion is more substantive than the first two iterations, so perhaps something will be done. The task force report currently includes this language: [Suggestion: recommendation for establishing an individual domain name holders constituency. Included in the recommendations provisions to ensure an adequate level of participation and representative of the individual domain name holders. Clearly define the membership, which must have broad and international representation. Different models should be looked at to see how best to ensure this, such as provisional recognition for membership.] It's ambiguous and seems unclear who is to define the membership or what an "adequate" level of participation is. It would seem to me that these should be addressed by the proposed WG., and any additional reworking required would happen after the WG presented it's petition to the BoD. On the other hand, it was stated at the MDR meeting that the GA has requested a working group on two prior occasions and that a working group was promised but never started (the scribe notes indicate that comment was by Jonathon Weinberg). The WG motion is therefore the fourth internal request for a working group, and while there is some overlap of GA members making the requests and motions, substantially different groups have worked on them. To my thinking, that clearly demonstrates a persistent and wide-ranging desire for such a working group. Given that there is history of repeated requests and inaction (for whatever reason), a decision by the NC to either delay again or to NOT act favorably on our motion could certainly be cited as a demonstration of NC unresponsiveness to the needs of the GA membership and internet stakeholders in general. So I would regard it as favorable that it will be taken up by the NC in the next few weeks - but there is no promise of action either way. Until the Names Council addresses the issue - and they've made it clear they want to, very soon - I don't see much this WG can do as a WG. As individuals, people who support the motion can post support for it to the comments on the TF draft report; write to NC members and ask them to support it in the meeting; and encourage individuals who are individual domain name holders to join the GA and voice their support. In my opinion, these individual actions would likely be far more productive than debating the topic here, but the group's wishes shall certainly take precedence over my opinion. Greg sidna@feedwriter.com |