[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [IFWP] the DNSO general assembly
- Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 04:13:24 +0100
- From: Jeff Williams <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: [IFWP] the DNSO general assembly
Joop and all,
Joop Teernstra wrote:
> Kent Crispin wrote:
> >On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 11:41:30AM -0400, Bret Fausett wrote:
> >> ICANN's press release read:
> >> >The constituencies, which will elect the
> >> >Names Council to act as the governing body of the Domain Name Supporting
> >> >Organisation (DNSO), are the core of the DNSO.
> >> For the record, I think a better way of understanding the DNSO is to
> >> place the General Assembly at its "core."
> >Yes. And this misunderstanding is behind the misguided idea of an
> >"Individual Constituency", as well.
> The Paris Draft, which I supported, places the General Assembly at the
> heart and the top of the DNSO.
> When ICANN came with *its* structure in Singapore, and came with 6
> constituencies that do not care for DN owners's interests and one
> non-commercial one that is for organizations and thus a recipe for on-going
> trench warfare, the creation of an Individual DN owners constituency was
> seen as necessary to look after typical interests of Individual DN owners,
> 1. not to be held hostage by registries and registrars
> 2. not to be bullied by deep pocketed corporations that may covet their DN
> 3. not to be subjected to a bureaucracy that does not understand that
> Individuals can be both commercial and non-commercial
> 4. to have at least *one* constituency where concerns of free speech can
> find a home.
Good points here Joop and of course necessary as has been made
glaringly evident from the decisions that the ICANN Interim Board and
desires of the ISOC and in particular Don Heath, to subvert of control
individual domain name owners and non-commercial domain name owners
so as to limit their "Stake" in the decisions yet to come and policy debates
yet to be determined. This sort of thing will also occur with the POS and
the ASO as well.
Kent, in the infamy of his name due to his rantings should be considered in
light that he along with the old PAB/POC/CORE consortium which is part of the
ICANN Interim Board's obvious attempt to "Capture" the basic resources of the
Internet with the representation on the ICANN Interim board of Mike Roberts.
These folks and the organizations that they are associated with have no
interest in having Individuals either as Domain Name holders (Stakeholders)
or as "Interested Parties" to have any say in how policies are determined.
This was made glaringly obvious at the Singapore ICANN Conference and
again in Berlin.
> Misguided? A hundred individuals have quickly gathered to say otherwise.
> >> While the constituencies collectively may comprise a substantial
> >> percentage of the General Assembly, there are many unaffiliated
> >> individuals and groups that may only find a place to participate in the
> >> General Assembly.
> >Indeed. There is an unavoidable "catch all" character to individual
> >domain name holders -- they cross all categories, and as such it is
> >hard to imagine a constituency that meaningfully deals with that
> The constituency deals not with the diversity, but with the commonality.
> The diversity is what enriches it.
Good point and exactly correct. This enrichment helps to create balance
and promotes diversity, a healthy thing...
> On the other hand, there are many individuals who may
> >not have a personally registered domain who are very interested in
> >domain name issues -- do we need a constituency for them, as well?
> If you know them, show them to me , Kent.
> Mostly they are people who are interested in getting a DN.
> In other words, stateholders or potential stakeholders.
> If not, the at large representation has been created for "people who are
> interested in DN issues".
> They can even elect 9 Board Members.
> >The inspiration for the General Assembly was the IETF -- where
> >*any interested individual* can participate. People are hung up on
> >representation in the Names Council.
> Because the general assembly has been subjected to the NC, in the new
> >> Whether a substantive policy proposal should be adopted is measured by
> >> the degree of consensus in the General Assembly. This is in keeping with
> >> the bottom-up decision-making style that should characterize the DNSO.
> O.K. then the DNSO bylaws need revisiting.
Yes the DNSO bylaws do need major revision in several areas, which has
already been pointed out.
> Did that "yep" represent all of CORE/PAB?POC? That would be a breakthrough.
> --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
> the Cyberspace Association,
> the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208