DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

[comments-review] My comments to DNSO Review...

To whom it may concern:

  My comments here will be brief.

  I have been selectively censored from commenting or equally
participating in the DNSO as well as the ICANN At Large.  
I received a post from "Babybows.com" <webmaster@babybows.com>
(The original request post is copied below, 
requesting my comments on the DNSO review.  As I am not allowed 
for reason or reasons that I am in disagreement with and are 
as well, inconsistent with reality I am in some great 
disagreement with the process in which stakeholders, 
of which I am one, are allowed to participate.  I respectfully 
therefore cannot at this time support anything in the DNSO 
review report as the DNSO GA itself is tainted with 

Thank you for you query anyway.

James Touton INEGRoup East Director.

================================  Copy of original request for comments
        Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:24:28 -0500
        "Babybows.com" <webmaster@babybows.com>

      The DNSO Review Task Force has published its Preliminary Report. 

      Public Comments are being accepted until Feb.11 at: 

      Comments already posted may be viewed at: 

      As an individual who has posted to the GA list, you may wish to
agree with, disagree with,
      react to, or expand upon the Review TF comments cited below.  Your
input is needed and
      will be appreciated.


      D. General Assembly

The General Assembly of the DNSO is an open forum for participation in
the work of the DNSO. The
participants are individuals with an interest in participating in the
DNSO, and issues pertaining to the
areas for which the DNSO has primary responsibility. Participants may
also contribute expertise to the
work of the DNSO, including work items and participation in working

While the GA has extensive membership [GET EXACT NUMBERS] it appears to
be handicapped by
having no little participation or authority. How to address the current
structural problems to enhance the
GA within the DNSO has received much discussion,34 and should be further

Recommendation: [Suggestion: If there is an Individual Domain Name
Holders constituency, the
structure of the GA should be revisited to avoid duplication with the
role of the individual
constituency. For example, the GA could perform the role of an
issue-intake mechanism. This could
also be explored even if there is not an individual domain name holder's
constituency, as the role of
the GA in the DNSO process would then be very important. Recommend that
ICANN in its request to
the NC on the establishment of an individual constituency, include that
the role of the GA should
there be an individual constituency be evaluated and recommendations


a public service message from Danny Younger, babybows.com

================================= End of copy

Shop online without a credit card
RocketCash, a NetZero subsidiary

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