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

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear BabyBows,
Thank you for your nice comments. I just want to add that "DN holdership" 
is not in mind mind an absolute. But it should be the normal filter : it be 
understood that DNSO relates to DNs and that common knowlege of a DN holder 
is assumed. But obviously no control would be made: experience of the IDNO 
shown that it is not feasible.

Also, this unformal pre-requisite should help in not confusing 
unncessarily. Non-comm, DNSO/BC/SME are areas for IDN holders too. I 
certainly do not want to prevent Joop and the rest of us to create an SIG 
or many centers of interest for them: I feel that if everyone is supposed 
to be a DN Holders, the difference and alliances (as suggested by Joop a 
few months ago) may be easier as the only "official" difference will be 
individual, non-profit, business holdership.

To close that issue on a full consensus basis: everyone is a would be DN 
owner. And the questions, remarks, needs of would be DN owners are of real 
interest to the DNSO. These people are the new markets. This is true for 
new commers, new trades/applications and for new nations.

Jefsey


On 12:15 22/03/01, babybows.com said:
>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

--
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