Re: [ga] "To represent the unrepresented"

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Philip, Danny and Joop,
The case of the future ".name" registrants should not be part of a 
constituency request. However this new TLD calls for past demands to be 
worked a bit more (this does not change the value of Joop's points).

What you actually ask for is a representation of the Individual Registrants.
What I ask for is a representation of the individual users.
These are two separated issues part of larger scopes.

The current ALSC works and questions might lead to a clearer distribution 
of the constituencies in the DNSO and in the @large representation. The 
premature closing of the WG-Review does not permit the necessary dialog we 
need today. So let try to resume the debate on the DNSO point of view.

If we consider the ALSC propositions (when they keep the DNSO) they propose 
it to be made of the gTLD, (I suppose the sTLD),  the ccTLD and the 
Registrar Constituencies. Such an approach calls for three other 
constituencies: the Registrants, the Internet Users and the DNS developpers.

Now, on the @large side we will have also a need to represent Registrants 
(content provider, webmasters, stakeholdsers) and the Internet Users as two 
separated groups, different from "Consummers"as new forms of Internet usage 
are with us (webTV, telecontrol,  telephone, datasaving, moneytransfer, ... 
) with new protection needs, when the Internet is totally hidden to the 
consumer.

Question is about one or two Registrant constituencies. IMHO individual 
registrants may only benefit from an alliance with corporate registrants. 
But there are obvious concerns (education, registration procedures, 
sunrise, renewal management, protection, management complexity, relations 
with Registrars, insurrances, language, bundled propositions, etc. which 
are specific to Individual Registrants). So I would strongly recommand two 
Registrant constituencies. An Individual Registrant and a Corporate Registrant.

The same rationale should apply to Internet Users as their motivations and 
the dangers resulting from not taking them into consideration are extremely 
different. Corporate Users will be concerned by the protection of the DNS 
exchanges, new forms of directories based upon the DNS, value added DNS 
services, VPN deployment, DN semantic, additional addressing plans, 
proposition of new services, etc... Individual Users will be more 
interested in proximity addressing, smart addressing, switch to other 
possible consensa (the Internet is only our consensus to use the TCP/IP 
protocol set, the IP addressing plan and the DNS: this consensus may change 
due to new technologies, confusion or limitations on addressing, DN mess, 
prices, alternative offers, etc...).

A DNS innovation/development constituency is of the essence. Initial 
thinking has privileged the "nets" aspect - protocol, services, RFCs. The 
DNS is the translation of the "Inter" aspect of the Internet. This has not 
been been fully accepted yet by some of the elders who still consider the 
Internet as a centralized network using the ICANN "governance" instead of 
IANA functions, the TLD "contracts" instead of TLD management declaration , 
hierachical  DNS instead of multi-layered, fossilized DN concepts instead 
of innovative thinking, etc... The DNSO needs a constituency of the Future 
DNS where the market demand, the dreamers and the developpers may meet and 
shape the evolution of the system and devise/advise on the possibilities 
coming from new developments (example: mumti-view, multi-roots).

On 10:44 06/08/01, Joop Teernstra said:
>At 09:38 6/08/01 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote:
>
>>Please send me one document based on previous GA discussion which 
>>outlines the rationale for an Individuals constituency together with 
>>information on the level of support and dissent for the proposal. On 
>>receipt I will table this for discussion with the task force.
>
>The rationale for the Constituency was presented to the GA in Santiago in 
>the form of a presentation.
>I will list the catchphrases, which made up the core of the presentation, 
>for the Chair's benefit.
>
>Rationale for  the Individuals' Constituency:  To represent the unrepresented.

True. Full support. But at two levels:
- as participants to the Internet operations and this mainly means at DNSO
- as stakeholders in the Internet development and this mainly means @large

>Domain Name Regulation is proposed without the voting participation of the 
>regulated.

200% true.

>We are needed in the DNDSO to provide balance.
>The Internet *is* about Individuals.
>The current DNSO, without the (already then) proposed Individual Domain 
>Name Holders' Constituency, is the result of the Singapore compromise to 
>accommodate the IP lobby. This was wrong.

This compromise was testified about by Joe Sims. That testimony is in the 
WG-Review archives quoted by one of the Members. This explains the whole 
problem of the DNSO. A search on "Sims and Jennings" in the archives (I am 
not familiar with that)?

>Individual Domain Name Holders are stakeholders: they have a personal stake.
>They make up a large percentage of the total Registrants.
>
>Our participation in the GA and the workgroups is useless, if we do not 
>have a representative to vote for us on the Names Council.

This is the absurd result from the constituency concept. Today the GA has 
one rep to the NC, what is already a good move. But the NC Members should 
be elected by the GA after "constituency" endorsement.

>The level of support and opposion to an Individuals' Constituency is best 
>illustrated by the Yokohama GA vote on the issue: 67 for and 3 against.

We can take a vote today. This is only opposed today by the IPC constituency.

I note however that the IPC constituency ( http://ipc.songbird.com ) :
- only permits International and National organizations to be represented
- denies individual TM holders do nominate candidates to the NC
- has no open mailing list
- the link to the Membership documentation page is broken

It would be of real interest to understand better the rationale of the IPC 
and if an IPC/Individuals committee has ever been considered. The IPC might 
have reasons we do not fully understand. I think that a common effort 
should be done to get a better mutual understanding. I have applied today 
to the IPC (I hold two TMs and I feel their policy does not fully match my 
interests: this education effort might be a first positive step. I will 
report on it).

Jefsey






--
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