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

[Phil King <yofelipe@excite.com>]

We have here presented the core of the most difficult task to be undertaken.
I've written about 'dynamic' in relation to structure.  Ok, We have not put
the constituency model through it's full paces.  We need a balanced way to
get valid constituencies in place by self organization where possible. 
Where not practical, then the model we have initiated in our proposed
pre-organized skeleton for an individual domain name holders/owners
constituency to be put in place if there is a true call for it in fact, not
just in the ideal of those of us putting it forward. 


Beyond that, Change is coming beyond what we can predict.  We need to put in
place a way to modify system both within DNSO and ICANN as a whole.  Neither
is the total answer to their areas as the net develops/evolves. 
Hardware/software progress in leaps.  Backbone evolution/expansion likewise.
New situations, new problems.  New solutions for service rollout and support
from within ICANN, or a development of ICANN, must be able to happen in an
organized practical way to keep Governments from stepping in.  Powers that
be must be convinced that their control must be conditional or limited. 
This may be the hardest part.  Get BoD and such to let delegation happen and
resolutions be reviewed for practicality and applicability rather than how
they fit into a power scheme, or whether it fits how it has been done
before.  Checks and balances on implimentation as well as on onesided or
arbitrary decision making are lacking in the current DNSO/ICANN structure. 
It is a Corporate system, but if we are to keep governments out of it, it
must be responsive, responsible, and be a governance (I know there are
people who dislike the term) in it's area of internet service and developing
structure behind the scenes to most customers/users.  The majority of
ordinary netizens shouldn't have to think about us, and hear about us when
some new service or an update to domain structure happens.

Ok, more thrown into the list--pick it apart, it's how I learn.

ty--Phil in Butte!

On Mon, 05 Feb 2001 22:17:56 +1300, Joop Teernstra wrote:

>  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
>  


Yo, Felipe (I, Phillip)
Phil King
Butte America
(The Richest Hill On Earth)





_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/


--
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