RE: [wg-review] Re: dndef, 9

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 22:22 4/02/01 -0500, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

>I don't support complete overturn of the constituency model, but I am open
>to dialogue about new constituencies if they indeed are able to demonstrate
>that they can provide an organized and coherent input.  
>

With all due respect to my friends here who want to do away with
constituencies other people are busy building--(no matter how faulty and
clumsy some of these attempts are), I see the above sentence  as the key
that we should pick up and stick in the locked door of the DNSO.

We have done our mutual positioning---now it's time to start talking to
each other and see if there is room for agreement.

Marilyn is part of the Business (Domain Name Holders) constituency.
This constituency is supposed to include small (mom & pop) businesses, but 
of course the reality of expensive ICANN meetings makes their active
participation and inclusion ("organized and coherent input") unlikely.
I take it, Marilyn, that you are even  more sceptical about the chances of
survival of a self-funded constituency of Individual DN Holders. :-\

>In short, change doesn't scare me.

Another key phrase to encourage us to enter in productive dialog.

Change is what will dominate this scene for years to come and whatever
structure we come up with to replace what has been attempted so far, should
not be cast in stone either.
In this respect I agree with Dassa: emerging constituencies of the future
should find a ready-made and  welcoming procedure for their inclusion.

ICANN isn't the total answer to issues
>related to the Internet. I work in other fora, where the governance of
>content on the Internet is the topic of the day. Anyone who wants to help
>prevent governmental oversight of the Internet on content should be joining
>other groups... and their input would be very helpful. But this is not
>ICANN's agenda. 
>
How many groups can one meaningfully join? Non-governmental
content-oversight is certainly a challenging topic, but who wants to spend
serious time on a group that will have no chance at "governance"?
ICANN is the magnet for all would-be content regulators (vide the .kids
application), because of it's DNS policy setting.
The DNSO is the magnet, because that is where the policy recommendations to
the Board are supposed to come from. 
 
>let's get back to ICANN:  we haven't really enabled dialogue.  But we have a
>good start. Let's think about dialogue which is meaningful and supports
>contributions. 
>

We could do a lot worse than having a dialogue with you, Marilyn.
You may have seen my proposal for a "super" DN holder constituency, made up
of the Business-constituency, the Individual DN Holders' constituency and
the NCDNHC (and having 9 seats on the NC).

How would you feel about such an attempt at bringing common interests
together, and trying to balance these interests with the IP/
registry/registrar/ISP common interests?

Would this be a lead balloon within your own constituency? 



--Joop--
www.idno.org
--
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