<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [wg-review] DNSO recommendations
I have presented the attached model for the DNSO
which is actually much in line with propositions from
Greg and Karl Auerbach. Sotiris asked for funding
and Peter rose the ccSO question. Danny questioned
about representation in DNSO.
These points are responded through my understanding
of SOs and @large.
1. please remember that Joe Sims has testified that
DNSO has been organized as both a DN oriented
SO and a replacement for @large. @large is to be
now addressed by its own. I claim that the DNSO
must be reorganized as an SO only.
2. The difference I make between an SO and @large
is that an SO must be representative of competences,
has in mind netwide interests, looks for consensus
and is here to help the BoD decide. While I see @large
as representative of interests, with in mind stakeholders
various concerns, using democratic votes to obtain
decisions by the BoD.
In a nutshell SOs are consulting bodies for the BoD.
My position is therefore that their budget is by the
iCANN. They call on benevolent experts. Making
them funding their work would be a) preposterous
b) to open the way to influence rather than to
competence. Meetings, expenses, travels, calls,
must be on iCANN budget. (*)
SO discuss technicalities and to report about
feasibility and advisability. Decisions are to be taken
by the BoD. BoD must foot the bill of the SOs work
or fire them.
(*) iCANN should be on a business plan. What do
they do for who and how is this paid. Example: iCANN
selects Registrars: it should be paid % on Registrars
turn over.
3. In appearance I disagree with Peter de Blanc. I do
think that the SO must send 3 ccTLDs reps to the
BoD.
The rationale is:
- the SO are used as a pool for competence by the
BoD so they have 9 directors interested in netwide
solutions and 9 directors interested in compromises
best responding the various user interests.
- this pool of competences is broadly formed IMHO of
three sources : people competent in technicalities,
people with a general/international vision and people
interested in bringing the net in national/local life.
So I say that each SO should elect one Director
of each. So there would be one ccTLD Director from
DNSO, from ASO and from PSO.
I must add two additional comments :
- I strongly disagree that ccTLDs continue to call
themselves ccTLDs. This limits there involvement
to local registrations depending on IANA and Govs.
They will not have any more power when there are
thousands of TLDs and "DNS+" services as those
VeriSign and others are planning will come in. The
multi-lingual DNs is an example.
I say they are ccNICs :
- representative of their whole national community
- managing sometimes several ccTLDs (Fr, Dk, ..)
- managing IP local issues
They should provide value added services as well
to be less dependent from Govs, IANA, NSI:
- trusted third party service
- managing new TLDs
- offering international services altogethers (EFT;
EDI, etc...)
- be the acknowledged forum for multi-lingual DNs
of their language (CNNIC shown the path, going
to far I accept, but showing the proper way)
- participating into the "Bind Ring": a DNS+ galaxy
on a cooperative basis.
As such they are entitled to be present at the ASO
and at the PSO. I even feel that the iCANN should
simply be the association of the NICs (now the usNIC
develop we can go ahead) as main statutory Members
and TLDs as second level Statutory Members.
1. the NICs have according the CA law all the control
powers on budget through the iCANN/GA they form.
But have no more power than 3 BoD Members for
policy decisions.
2. There is no more problem about root property : it
is only the directory of the Members and of their
zone servers. Obviously anyone having filled a
first level field in the DNS database (TLD) and
behaving decently would be accepted as TLD
Manager. In this way the iCANN would be a
worldwide professional secretariat for the TLD
and DNS+ industry.
3. There is no more problem about financing. As
in most professional organization Membership is
according the turn-over.
I certainly accept that this model is different from the
current one. But IMHO the model iCANN will eventually
adopt to provide a stable stability to the Internet will not
be very different from it. Question is to know if we want
to save years and years of efforts and disputes in eventually
reaching it.
My reading of the VeriSign proposed agreement is for
VeriSign and Staff to develop and impose this model their
own way. Registrars are rights in asking the M$ 200 to
be a pro-competition fund: the way VeriSign and Staff
wants to create it is an anti-competition pro-monopoly
fund. I oppose to that because should they succeed
it would be the Big Brother. Such an approach must be
international and cooperative, i.e. consensus based.
Jefsey.
On 12:54 17/03/01, Jefsey Morfin said:
>The DNSO model I support is rather simple and not
>so different from the existing one - once the voting
>aspects have been changed.
>
>1. The DNSO is to be a Consultant to the BoD on DN
> issues. Only DN holders should be allowed as members.
>
>2. The DNSO is made of the GA.
>
>3. The GA Members may create Special Interest Groups
> of different kinds (Clubs, Interest Centers, Associations,
> etc.. The existing Constituencies should stay unaffected
> as SIGs.) SIGs may chose their own rules. Every declared
> SIG (even not yet/no more acknowledged by the GA) has
> a right to a DNSO mailing list and sub-site.
>
>4. The NC is a coordination list gathering SIG's Chairs.
> Acceptation of SIG within the NC is voted by the GA
> annually or at the demand of 10% of the GA Members.
>
>5. The BoD Members are elected by the GA. Nominations
> must be seconded by the a certain number of NC
> Members (so candidates are serious enough and
> acknowledged by the community). One of the
> Directors elect will have to represent a ccTLDs.
>
>6. Chair and co-Chair of the GA are nominated by GA
> Members and elected by GA Members.
>
>7. Reports to the BoD can be refused by the NC for poor
> quality or lack of consensus. Such refusal shall call
> on 2 vetoes by two GA accepted SIG.
>
>8. DNSO will be informed of every DN related issue and
> commercial negotiation. No DN related decision will
> be taken by the BoD without preceding conclusions
> by the DNSO. Emergency decision will be possible,
> but for a limited period of time.
>
>Jefsey
>
>
>On 07:31 16/03/01, Sotiropoulos said:
>>All,
>>
>>Broadly speaking, I believe it is possible to
>>identify the following general Topics of Interest
>>with reference to proposals/recommendations
>>relating to the process/structure of the DNSO
>>(please bear in mind that the list is loosely
>>based on the discussions within this WG to date
>>and is not to be understood as
>>comprehensive/exhaustive):
>>
>>1) Those in favour of abolition of Constituency
>>structure altogether with
>> a)a reintegration into an undefined mass GA
>>electorate or,
>> b)a restructuring into a Constituency
>>organization along ccTLD lines (i.e. national) or,
>> c)a reformulation into a representative,
>>two-level parliamentary organization.
>>2) Those in favour of the Status Quo within the
>>DNSO.
>>3) Those in favour of modifications to the
>>existing structure (i.e. creation of additional
>>Constituencies to be grafted into the current
>>organization) without much change to the overall
>>structure.
>>4) Those in favour of a restructuring of the DNSO
>>as a whole, according to a novel set of
>>procedures/principles.
>>
>>If anyone has any comments/corrections on these
>>divisions, and/or any additions to make to this
>>list, please feel free to post your suggestions.
>>I am merely trying to set up a structure which
>>will help to identify and facilitate pertinent
>>topics of discussion which may aid us in the
>>formulation of as wide an array of considerations
>>as possible.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|