[wg-review] Constituencies yes, Names Council no.

["babybows.com" <webmaster@babybows.com>]

I would like to thank Philip Sheppard, NC Chair, for having taken the time
to respond to this Working Group.  His comments well illustrate that which
many of us find abhorrent in the Status Quo.   Rather than directly
discussing the bottoms-up consensus-based effort to achieve a necessary
restructuring of the DNSO, he chooses to advise us again that the Names
Council (in it's top-down management wisdom) plans to pull the plug on this
forum for the review of the DNSO:  "The work of the existing WG Review
(whose terms of reference were to contribute to the consulting phase of the
review process) will come to a close 16 April."

Rather than allowing a working group mailing list to facilitate discussion
of the "execution of recommendations from the Review process", the Names
Council chooses to force us onto an already heavily trafficked GA mailing
list:  "General discussion will continue on the main GA list."  Fortunately,
we can all agree that perhaps though not as fair as all of us would wish,
Mr. Sheppard's plan is certainly open and transparent - it is an action
designed to minimize the impact of our ongoing criticism.

This criticism is warranted.  One more we hear of committees convened that
either work in secret or not at all: "an interim group has been formed to
recommend terms of reference and means of outreach for this."  Where is the
public record of the activities of this interim group?  Like the
not-available-to-the-public record for the WHOIS committee, or the
existent-with-nothing-done public record of the Outreach committee, or the
lack-of-discussion-on-recommendations public record of the Review Task Force
committee, this interim group will assuredly continue in the fine tradition
of Names Council committees.

These closed committees and task force groups that perversely water down or
ignore or forever postpone the proposals and formulations of dedicated
Working Groups are precisely that which is wrong with the Status Quo; this
alone is a fitting argument for the dissolution of the Names Council.

I ask you, what has the Names Council actually done in pursuit of policy
formulations over the course of the last year?  Which policy matters have
they examined?  Where is the record of extensive debate on anything?  Where
is the Names Council initiative on a revised UDRP, on multilingual
registration policies, on an expired domain name policy, on policies
pertaining to the new registries?  What has the Names Council been doing
other than turning a blind eye to their responsibilities?  This is not
leadership.  This is a prime example of the consequence of a flawed
structure at odds with the premise of bottoms-up organization.

We need the constituencies, we need the input of everyone willing to
participate in this process, individuals, small business, public-interest
groups; we do not need the Names Council.

The General Assembly is open to all and welcomes all to participate.  Within
the General Assembly, representation is not an issue - all may have their
voices heard even if they are not formally a member of any given
constituency.  The General Assembly functions in a true bottoms-up manner
and has the means to present resolutions and recommendations to the ICANN
Board.  Working Groups or committees convened by the General Assembly would
never be closed, would never dilute the content of discussions, and would
respect and include minority opinions in all their formulations.

I see in Jefsey Morfin's proposal a vision of the future of the DNSO in
which all truly have a voice, a proposal in which additional constituencies
are welcomed, a proposal in which there are almost no barriers to admission
(I personally would eliminate the domain name holder requirement, as
end-users, not all being domain-name-holders, also have a stake in the
future of the Internet).  I would urge members of this Working Group to
focus on this proposal, to refine it as required by consensus
considerations, and to present it formally to the ICANN Board for
consideration.

The Status Quo model is tragically flawed.  Improvements to this model will
be no more effective than bandages on a mortal wound.  Maintaining and
preserving the Status Quo is an unacceptable option.

Adding additional constituencies to the current model as a means to increase
representation is also an unworkable proposition.  We have seen the valiant
efforts of Joop Teernstra to create an individuals constituency rejected
over and over again.  At this rate, we will never have any new
constituencies added to the current collection, and additional barriers to
entry will assuredly emerge as the Names Council formulates new "criteria"
for the admission of any new constituencies.

Jefsey Morfin's model is the only one that is truly fair to all, that allows
for full participation, and that offers the promise of actually getting some
real work done.

--
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