DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

[comments-review] Criteria or hurdles?

Criteria for establishing new DNSO constituencies

> >
> >1. Need
> >1.1 What need would the proposed new constituency fill?

The need for representation of Individual Domain Name Holders, a unique 
segment of DNS stakeholders that generally lacks the resources to work for 
the security of their Domain Names individually.

> >1.2 What would the proposed new constituency bring to the DNSO that is now
> >lacking?
> >

A better balance between constituencies of Domain Name Suppliers' 
representatives and Domain Name Registrant representatives.

> >2. Common interest
> >2.1 What commonality of interest would the members of the proposed new
> >constituency share?
> >

The personal concern of  an Individual Domain Name Holder for 
his/her  Domain Name.
This is distinct from the bond between a corporation or a non-commercial 
organization and their Domain Name.

> >3. Distinction
> >3.1 How much overlap in membership is there likely to be between the
> >proposed new constituency and existing constituencies,

Since the other constituencies do not accept Individual Membership, there 
is no overlap.
However, any of the other constituencies can  and will send their 
representatives into the new Individuals' Constituency in an effort to 
dominate it.
Therefore some safeguard must be drawn up to make sure that the new 
constituency really speaks for the typical interests of Individuals.

>  the General Assembly

Many of the present and future members of the Individuals' Constituency are 
now gathered in the General Assembly, proving their strong interest in the 
ICANN processes.

> >and other parts of ICANN?
> >

There is no current representation of Individual Domain Name Holders 
elsewhere in the ICANN structure.

> >4. Representation
> >4.1 How representative of the stated common interest would the proposed new
> >constituency be?

Only a genuine democratic structure and a large number of genuine members 
can guarantee that. If the representatives do not work for the shared 
common interest, they are not (re)elected. This is the only way 
representativity can be safeguarded.

> >4.2 What steps have the petitioners taken to establish a hierarchy of
> >representativeness and openness within the proposed new constituency?
> >

They have created a Charter with an elected Executive Committee and other 
elective positions.
They have a website where the process of nominations and elections is detailed.

> >5. Alternatives
> >5.1 Are there alternative means of fulfilling the stated need besides
> >recognition of a new constituency?

Not really.
Alternatives like representation of Individual DN Holders through an At 
Large Director election
1. be a long time in the making
2. will do nothing to balance the DNSO supply-side, demand-side interests
3. will move  needed negotiations and mutual understanding of perceived 
conflicting interests to Board level.

> >5.2 Are there other places within the ICANN structure where this need could
> >be fulfilled?
> >

see 5.1
The At Large structure is likely to be dominated by nationalistic, cultural 
and geo-divisional issues, and leave insufficient roomn for policy 
discussions that typically affect Individual Domain name Holders.

> >6. Organisation on a global scale
> >6.1 What steps have the proponents of the proposed new constituency taken to
> >organise the proposed new constituency?

A website with a signup facility and Information about the constituency's 
internal and external activities has been going for more than 2 years. So 
far over 240 people have signed up, of which 219 email addresses still respond.
An active archived mailing list is maintained, which functions as a General 
A Charter with rules that protect against capture has been drawn up and 
ratified by the membership. www.idno.org/organiz.htm

> >6.2 Has the proposed new constituency demonstrated the capability to command
> >the financial and human resources required by a constituency?
> >

Non-recognition has stood in the way of proper fund raising and the ability 
to engage paid staff.
So far everything that has been accomplished has been done by individual 
sacrifice of time and money resources.

> >7. Support within the DNSO
> >7.1 What steps have the proponents of the proposed new constituency taken to
> >seek support from existing constituencies?
> >

A great deal has been undertaken and a great deal has been accomplished. 
Attendance of key IDNO founders at physical ICANN meetings has enabled the 
IDNO to persuade many of the other constituency members that an 
Individuals' constituency is needed in the DNSO and on the NC.
The straw polls that have been taken in Berlin (one third of the GA members 
was in favour), Santiago (over half of the GA members was in favour) and 
Yokohama (over 60 members raised their hands in favour and only 3 opposed) 
show the growth in support.

> >8. Impact assessment
> >8.1 What would be the impact of the proposed new constituency on existing
> >constituencies?

Existing constituencies will reap the benefit of direct and meaningful 
negotiations with representatives of Individual Domain Name Holders.
This will replace the bitter standoff that so far helped the Names Council 
to produce no significant policy input to the Board at all for over a year.

> >8.2 What would be the impact of the proposed new constituency on the
> >finances and administration of the DNSO?

Initially the new constituency would need funding help and secretariat help 
from the DNSO to function properly.
Membership growth, to be expected as a result of the recognition, should 
make the constituency self funding after perhaps one year.

> >8.3 What would be the impact of the proposed new constituency on policy
> >formation within the DNSO?

Such policy formation would at last become not only possible , but also 
credible and legitimate

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