RE: [wg-review] Final Draft on constituency recommendation

["Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <rod@cyberspaces.org>]

Joop,

I agree with all of your suggestions except the first one. The language in
the recommendation is intended to allow the Board to support the
recommendation without the need for concern by some Board members or
confusion among various self-organizers  that may arise if it were thought
that a particular group were being supported before an actual proposal were
submitted. Self-organizing formation process will serve the purpose of
organizing the IC once the Board calls for proposals for establishment of
the constituency. Hence, the need for language to show that the process is
not intended to be flimflam. The language regarding recognition "in
principle" is too weak. It provides very little over the status quo. I think
we should be   consistent with the establishment of the other
constituencies. The Board made the commitment first, and the self-organizing
followed. We have tried it the other way, and that simply did not work.
Let's use the stronger language, get the Board's commitment, and allow the
various groups to self-organize with a tangible goal this time.  The prior
efforts need not be wasted, but if we attempt to force the Board to ratify
those efforts, the more important goal might be jeopardized. As I said, the
other points you made seem fine with me.

Rod

> >
> >Sotiris and I have worked on the constituency recommentation. I
> am posting
> >it for comment since this revision differs from what was posted
> yesterday.
> >Please comment. We are hoping to finalize this one.
> >
> >Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board immediately call for the
> >formation of an
> >Individual Domain Name Holders' Constituency (IC).
>
> Rod,
> The problem that I have with this sentence, is that it appears to ignore
> that such a constituency has already been in a state of formation
> for 2 years.
> The Board can do two things, according to the Bylaws:
> 1. Recognize a petition from the self-organizers of a constituency
> formation effort  OR
> 2. Create such a constituency on its own
>
> I would prefer the phrase: It is recommended that the Board recognizes in
> principle the need for  an
> Individual Domain Name Holders' Constituency (IC) and directs the DNSO
> secretariat to assist with the constituency formation effort by
> instituting
> an official IC mailing list.
>
> The IC shall be a
> >self-organized Constituency Group within the DNSO.
> >To ensure that the IC is representative of its constituents and is
> >self-organized, no existing ICANN organization or any other
> self-appointed
> >committee/group, including, but, not limited to the NC or any present
> >constituency within the GA, may direct the coordination of constituency
> >formation efforts.
>
> I have also a problem with the words "any other self-appointed
> committee/group".
> Any bottom-up constituency formation efforts starts around self-appointed
> bootstrappers. Any other way is not bottom-up.
> The above formulation seems to exclude any and all constituency
> self-organizers.
> I suggest deleting that part.
>
> To that end, those who are working to organize the IC
> >should inform ICANN of those efforts by participation on an
> e-mail list to
> >be established by the DNSO Secretariat.
>
> Good point.
> In view of the experiences that the IDNO has suffered, this mailing list
> MUST be moderated by impartial moderators.
>
> IC organizers are reminded that they
> >are required to operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and
> >transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure
> >fairness.
>
> Yes. But should the recommendation just contain a 'reminder"? Or should we
> say "The ICANN Board should make it clear that IC organizers are required
> to operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and
> transparent manner
> and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness."
>
> IT IS FURTHER recommended that the Board call for the
> >establishment of the IC without delay in order to provide sufficient time
> >for the IC to establish its proposal for the Board's recognition at the
> >ICANN meeting in Stockholm.
>
> That would be sweet.
>
> During the formation process, the IC organizers
> >should prepare without undue dely an appropriate statement(s) of their
> >criteria for participation in the IC and their planned process
> for selecting
> >Names Council members. These statement(s) will be distributed to
> the ICANN
> >Board and posted on the ICANN web site.
> >
> In accordance with the text of the Bylaws this could read "posted on the
> ICANN website for public comment".
> I would like to add that not only the ICANN web site but also the DNSO
> website should contain references to the Constituency organizing effort,
> including links to the website(s) and mailing list(s).
>
>
>
>
> --Joop--
> Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
> Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
> Developer of    The Polling Booth
> www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/
>
>
> --
> 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