DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] could the DNSO/GA be penetrated? proposition for a FireWall

Dear Danny,
the work you may achieve is amazing. You are worth a task force by 
yourself, as if you were full time on this issue. With such a work achieved 
I feel quite disturbing you do not even considered Eric's question.

Until very recently - only due to your action, and only on the GA but may 
be disseminating - the IDNH project has become a confuse "IC" project [cf. 
your motion and your response], what made it fail in Stockholm.

On 05:26 10/06/01, Danny Younger said:
>Eric writes:  "Please define Individuals Constituency.  I have many friends
>concerned over what we are discussing here."
>Back in late February, the Names Council Business Plan was first introduced
>(the URL is:  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-plan/Arc00/doc00003.doc ).
>This was shortly after the reports of the Review Working Group and the
>Review Task Force were issued.  That Business Plan had a section devoted to
>"DNSO Operation Related" and included the following statement:
>"5.4 Individuals Constituency. Review the need, uniqueness, potential
>contribution and representiveness of an individual domain name holder's


Now, let suppose I want to defend the interests of .NAME or .PRO at the 
iCANN what should I do? Identify an  interesting position to be elected to. 
Create confusion there so people spend their time about that confusion. 
Maintain a float some controverted topics active so the world knows there 
are concerns "backing" you and you embody a reasonable clarification of the 
confusion. I would use this support an official outreach effort towards my 
future customers (individuals without a DN but going to have mine) under 
the cover of known and acknowledged supporters - those that Derek calls 

I think you will agree that such DNSO/GA penetration is possible and we 
have to take some protection arrangements. All the more than the other 
future gTLDs applicants might not like such an "hi-jacking".

IMHO the following propositions would help us "fire walling" the DNSO/GA:

1. we stop half confusion and most traffic jam in decommissioning sub-MLs.
2. we clearly talk about IDNH as per the last three years
3. we select a representative dedicated group of 9 geographic reps to 
seriously interface the NC, the ccTLDs and the BoD on that matter.
4. we start seriously to consider the Individual Users ("dotcommer") impact 
on DN policy and how to foster an outreach and a dialog effort 
geographically credible in that area (*)
5. electing Joop Teemstra to the BoD with a clear mandate and an 
articulated doctrine.
6. developing a far more active relation with *our* Directors. Mr. Abril i 
Amril, Cohen and Pisanty should post more often on their GA ML than Mr. 
Cerf or Mr. Stuart.
7. investigating seriously the matter of the strictly DNSO constituencies 
as general interests in the DNS: review of the priorities and concerns of 
*each* of the constituencies. Introduction of a DNS development oriented 
Constituency (both for innovation fostering and for real technical 
competence to be at hand).


(*) This might certainly lead to support an IUSO/AC (Internet User Support 
Organization where both current @large and IDNH could fit together as 
separated constituencies but at equal level with DNSO [gTLDs] and ccTLDs).

>The NC Business Plan was formally adopted in Melbourne, and Interim
>Committees were created to establish Terms of Reference for Task Forces or
>"other bodies".  These Terms of Reference were formally adopted in
>Stockholm.  Discussions led to a recommendation to involve the GA, through a
>representative, in the process:
>DNSO Review (Swinehart): Need to discuss implementation of terms of
>reference. Based on the suggestions from WG-D, which were extensive and
>conducted openly. Review costs in preparation for moving forward. Question
>of next steps for individuals constituency - accept proposals, form a
>further task force, etc.
>        1.   Sheppard: A task force makes sense. I might volunteer to chair
>it, if that was acceptable to others.
>        2.   Swinehart: Consultation.
>             Stubbs: Need to include the chairman of the GA.
>             Swinehart: A good suggestion.
>        3.   Swinehart: GA chair (consider changes), Individuals Constituency
>(determine next steps), language diversity (determine costs, and make a
>recommendation for a cost-effective means for making translations).
>        4.   Swinehart: Perhaps we should take proposals from DNSO, and
>evaluate the various proposals.
>        5.   Stubbs: Goal is to include some representative of the GA. This
>may or might not be the GA chair. "GA chair or designee."
>        6.   Martinez: Is this process consistent with the Bylaws? Bylaws
>call for self-organizing of constituencies.
>             Sheppard: Seems OK. We're anticipating what will happen when a
>group self-organizes.
>             Chicoine: Note that ICANN Board has considered prior proposals.
>We're just helping move the process forward.
>Two days thereafter, the ICANN Board began a discussion pursuant to the
>motion passed by the General Assembly:
>N.   General Assembly request re Independent Domain Name Holders
>        1.   Cohen: Recall deal in Cairo that ALSC would examine structure of
>ICANN as a whole. Recommend that we consider this in Montevideo. Look for
>legitimacy and reasonableness.
>        2.   Auerbach: There are many individuals joining the DNSO for the
>purpose of considering domain name policy. At Large considers general ICANN
>policy (protocols and addresses also). Two concepts shouldn't be mixed.
>        3.   Mueller-Maguhn: Ask the Board to agree that this request goes to
>the Public Comment Forum. Should discuss results in Montevideo.
>        4.   McLaughlin: Procedure in Bylaws. See Article VI. Not clear
>whether Board has a petition as contemplated by Bylaws. Previously, have
>seen concern that proposals don't have enough support.
>        5.   Abril i Abril: Uncomfortable receiving motions from GA or
>constituencies, but never getting anything from the DNSO as such. DNSO
>should try to work as an SO, or suggest another structure that they think
>would work better. Recall also that GA was not supposed to vote.
>        6.   Lynn: Would have thought that a proposal like this would come
>through NC, which would make sure that proper background work was done. Many
>questions about what makes an individual domain name holder. Much work to be
>done. Also need an impact statement in terms of staff work. Some homework to
>be done.
>        7.   Mueller-Maguhn: Nothing wrong with discussion here. But
>individuals are disorganized by their nature. Similar to problem that
>non-commercial organizations face in raising funds.
>        8.   Cerf: Possible to note that we received the GA's communication,
>that there is a procedure here, but that Bylaws must be followed. Proposal
>should come through the NC. We would entertain any reasonable proposal in
>accordance with Bylaws.
>The issue is now completely in the hands of the Names Council.  If a
>definition is required, then the Names Council's DNSO Review Task Force will
>be the body that addresses that matter.  As Phil Sheppard has volunteered to
>Chair that Task Force, perhaps your questions/concerns should be directed to
>him until such time as we select our representative.
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>