DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

RE: [nc-review] Comments on DNSO Review Report V1

As I said, IP is always our primary focus, but we do not care whether it is
the IP of an organization, a company or an individual.  If it deals with IP
we are interested.  So you are correct that the IPC does not represent
individual domain name holders to the extent their issues go outside IP or
if we believe they are contradictory to the protection of ip, and I thought
that was clear from my message.  That it is why I indicated that I am not
saying or implying that individuals are necessarily "fully" or "adequately"

It would be helpful since this issue will be brought up at our next meeting,
if we could have the prior petitions and documentation from those who have
previously presented a request for an individual constituency to ICANN and
ICANN's response in advance of that meeting. Louis, is this something ICANN
staff can provide us with?

-----Original Message-----
From: R.Gaetano@iaea.org [mailto:R.Gaetano@iaea.org]
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 8:12 AM
To: CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com; nc-review@dnso.org
Cc: Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com
Subject: RE: [nc-review] Comments on DNSO Review Report V1


I believe that your Constituency allows individual domain name holders as
members (as it may allow hockey players or plumbers), but this is not the
point. The individual domain name holders (or the hockey players or
plumbers) are in your Constituency not as "individual domain name holders"
but as "IP-related (intellectual property, not internet protocol)
The individual domain name holders that are not related to IP (which I do
believe are the vast majority) are still not represented.
Moreover, the NC reps from the IP Constituency do not have any mandate to
represent individual domain name holders. Indeed, if a matter arises where
individual domain name holders will be in conflict with IP interests (and I
think that this is far from impossible), the IP Reps could not do anything
else than forget that they are also individual domain name holders and take
the position that the Constituency decides them to take.

That means, to me, that the individual domain name holders are not
"represented". If you claim the contrary, please explain how the individual
domain name holders can influence the IP reps on the NC to vote according to
their indication disregarding IP interests.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chicoine, Caroline G. [mailto:CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 25 January 2001 21:01
> To: GAETANO, Roberto; nc-review@dnso.org
> Cc: Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com
> Subject: RE: [nc-review] Comments on DNSO Review Report V1
> I can only speak from my Constituency that does allow 
> individual members and
> the organizations represent individuals and companies alike, 
> obviously with
> an ip bent.  I just do not believe that it is accurate to say 
> they are not
> represented at all.  Please note that I am not stating 
> whether the current
> representation is sufficient or adequate, and I believe the 
> report makes it
> clear that some people do not think it is, but I did not 
> think the statement
> by itself was completely accurate.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: R.Gaetano@iaea.org [mailto:R.Gaetano@iaea.org]
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 12:10 PM
> To: CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com; nc-review@dnso.org
> Cc: Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com
> Subject: RE: [nc-review] Comments on DNSO Review Report V1
> Caroline wrote:
> > 
> > With respect to footnote 30, I do not think that it is 
> > accurate to say that
> > individual domain name holders and Internet users are not 
> > represented on the
> > Names Council as a general statement since at least in our 
> > case, we do.
> May I disagree with the comment, and support the original formulation.
> The individuals that sit in the NC at present may well be 
> Individual Domain
> Name Holders and/or Internet Users, but are surely not 
> representing these
> constituencies in the NC.
> If we accept this "indirect representation" as valid, we may as well
> eliminate the Business Constituency altogether, because a 
> large part of the
> entities represented in the NC are businesses anyhow.
> > <snip>
> > 
> > Also, with respect to Section C on Individual Constituency, I 
> > recommend
> > inserting Ken Stubb's reference to the bylaws regarding the 
> > issue of the NC
> > adding a Constituency to the DNSO (I am sure Ken can resend 
> > it to you, if
> > you do not have it handy).
> I'm not sure it is relevant in the report.
> If I remember correctly, Ken was making the point that the 
> DNSO does not
> have the authority to add/delete constituencies.
> That is fine, but what we are doing here is a different 
> thing: following
> mandate from the ICANN Board, we provide recommendations to 
> improve the
> DNSO, which is, of course, perfectly in order.
> In other words, the point is not "to have authority to add/remove
> constituencies", which obviously the DNSO does not have, but "to have
> authority to make recommandations to the Board about 
> addition/deletion of
> constituencies", which obviously the DNSO has (personally, I 
> would argue
> that it has not only the "authority", but even the 
> "obligation" - but that
> is just a personal opinion).
> > 
> > And, it really cannot be said enough, great job on this 
> > difficult project!
> > 
> Indeed.
> Let me also take the chance to comment on the original 
> document, point D.
> General Assembly.
> When Theresa asks about "GET[ting] EXACT NUMBERS", she hits the point.
> We don't know the exact numbers, because the GA is a set that is not
> "well-defined".
> /digression of a former scholar in abstract algebra:
> In set theory, a set is "well defined" when you have a 
> procedure to tell
> whether an object is an element of the set or not.
> This is exactly what we do not have, and IMHO one of the 
> biggest problems of
> the GA.
> /end digression
> Regards
> Roberto

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