Re: [wg-review] Re: DNSO Study

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 12:04 15/04/01 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

>1. let start the things moving in having a Center of Interest created at GA
>     level - no authorisation needed (all the more than Danny is now the
Chair
>     and got our support for that): on ML, one site by the first interested 
>person,
>     one link to the DNSO/GA site.

Accepting this,
There are already several sites that could be chosen as "the" site for the
Individual Domain Name Owners.
There have been fierce battles over 'control" of such sites.  Which one
would it be?
(The IDNO site is already linked to the ICANN site--just hard to find, that
link)

 Let work with "position links" towards a
>     consensus: all the stakeholders wishing to participate may have a
link to
>     the CI site for a position statement (competences and discussion status
>     may be easily evaluated this way be new/occasionnal participants). The
>     target is to progressively reduce the difference betwwen positions to 
>reach
>     step by step consensus.

This is a constructive idea.

>
>2. let create a coordination ML between the CI including a reprsentative
>     designated by each constituency.
>
Can you be more exact? Does this mean that the existing constituencies will
be all represented in this Mailing List together with one or two
"representatives" from the Center of Interest?

>This way we have the possible future solution in place. The mechanic for
>Special Interest Group set-up and a possible alternative to the NC.
>

Yes, it looks like a meta- NC, without any safeguards against capture.
This needs further thought, Jefsey.

>3. let push for the IDNH Constituency because today this is the system.

Thanks.

>    But at the same time let explain that the "Constituency" word is poor.
>    There is alrady a real difference between English and American meaning.
>    When translated into French this is quite an opposite meaning. When
>    explained to most of the non north-west European culture it is hermetic.
>    So let push - all of us - for a clearer word like SIG, or Commission. The
>    ccTLDs are heading toward ccTLD WWA (WorldWide Alliance).
>

I agree that the word constituency gives rise to a lot of misunderstanding.
But, it appears you are already taking back what you just concede.


>4. Let respect and cooperate with the NC. In taking advantage of the
tripartite
>     possibility. The CIs discusse, the GA proposes, the NC endorses. IMHO
>     the NC should be used as a Wise People Reveiwer of the BoD. The NC
>     has shown they cannot propose, but they can have an measured opinion
>     in the VRSN case. The advantage is that does not change anything and
>     whatever the designation of the NC members (with current constituencies)
>     he difference is not big. Obviously that the IDNH SIG becomes a
>     constituency would help.
>
No, I think the consensus of this WG is, that the IDNH SIG should be
recognized as a full constituency, not sometime in the future, but a.s.a.p.

With how you would see the SIG's and the GA initiatives develop in the
future, I do believe that changes in the Bylaws are needed to make those
possible.
 

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
Elected representative.
http://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