[ga] Re: Documentation request
Thank you for your reply. You have asked for documentation that outlines the
rationale for an Individuals' Constituency together with information on the
level of support and dissent for the proposal.
I will begin by citing the work-product of the Review Working Group:
The Preliminary report --
Notable excerpts from the preliminary report:
"The most visible and audible demand from Review WG apart from "Drop the
Constituencies" is to recognize "Individual Domain Name Holders/Owners" in
the Internet Policy-making process since its beginning."
"[Q] Do you favor the admission to the DNSO of an Individual DN holder's
constituency? Total number of voters: 32 Favour such a constituency 30
votes 93.75% (distinction IDNO/IDNH ignored) Against such a Constituency
2 votes 6.25%"
The Review Working Group Report on Constituencies -- (this one is 83 pages
"The WG Review has reached a consensus that a new Constituency be added to
represent Individual Domain Name Registrants. This WG is not going to address
how to implement this new Constituency, nor is it going to propose what group
should represent them or how it is to be formed. We only present that one
should be formed or selected within six months. We ask that this process be
expedited in this way because we believe it to be an oversight not to have
included them in the process to begin with. We further hope that you would
put this matter on the agenda as a top priority and seek public comment on
how this constituency shall be formed and how it will contribute to the ICANN
"I have been watching carefully and so far I have not seen a single person
oppose the principle that the DNSO should have an IDNH constituency. In fact
to my great pleasure several members of the Names Council have explicitly
posted in favour of this."
The Final Report -- WG Review Recommendations to the ICANN Board:
"Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board immediately begin seeking
proposals for the implementation and self-organization of an Individual’s
You may wish to also take note of the following proposed measure by Director
Auerbach, who was also an active member in the Review WG:
Proposed Resolution Regarding a DNSO Constituency for Individuals Who Own
Recognizing that individuals who have registered domain names have a
significant stake in domain name policy;
Recognizing that the creation of new DNSO constituencies is subject to the
requirements of Article VI, Section 3 of the ICANN By-Laws;
Recognizing that there is a long-standing community consensus for the
formation of a constituency for individuals who have registered domain names;
Recognizing that there have been difficulties in the formation of a stable
entity to act as the basis for such a constituency;
The ICANN Board of Directors Resolves:
The ICANN Board of Directors declares its desire that there be formed a DNSO
constituency for individuals who have registered domain names.
That the ICANN Board of Directors requests that the Internet Community
self-organize and create one or more detailed and concrete proposals for a
DNSO constituency for individuals who have registered domain names.
Such proposals shall be presented to ICANN before its year 2001 annual
Such proposals shall describe at least the following:
The proposed structure
Sources of funding
Criteria for membership
Willingness to reconcile differences with others who have submitted proposals
The ICANN Board of Directors expresses its intention to promptly consider
such proposals and hopes that a constituency for individuals who have
registered domain names may soon be formed.
With regard to dissent, we have this one comment made by Theresa Swinehart:
"Comments received during the DNSO review process indicate that while there
is not consensus on the need for an Individual Domain Name Holders
Constituency, there has been sufficient discussion to support. Suggest the
next step is to explore its establishment."
Ms. Swinehart (as her justification for declaring a lack of consensus) cites
to footnote #40:
Text adopted by the WG on the individuals'constituency question
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01825.html, adopted by a vote
of 17 yes, 1 no, 3 don't know.
This hyperlink also references the following vote:
"Among the questions referred to this WG by the task force is the question:
Should there be a constituency for individuals? Of the 31 respondents, 29
answered "yes". In a similar poll run in the more secure polling booth, 37
of 40 respondents answered affirmitavely." --Greg Burton, Co-chair WG-Review
In each above-cited case, a supra-majority prevailed. By most every metric,
this would be deemed consensus.
There was one other comment made by a single IPC officer who stated "I would
be against introducing any new constituencies at the present time." One
other mild comment was received from the AIPLA: "We offer no comments on
whether seven constituencies is the appropriate number. We do believe,
however, that user interests are reasonably represented in the existing
In addition to the efforts of the Review Working Group, we also have on
record the affirmative votes of the General Assembly:
Yokohama vote: 65 for, 3 against
Stockholm vote: 75 for, 15 against
I can appreciate the fact that you may not be aware of the extent of
documented support for this initiative (as some documents were posted after
the formal closure of the Working Group), but we contributing members will be
happy to provide the new Review TF with all the necessary citations out of
the over 3300 comments posted to the Review list...
If a historical perspective is required, I am sure that we can also locate
every comment on the GA list dating back to 1999 in support of such a
Please let me know if we can be of further assistance.