RE: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC

["Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Sorry Greg, I have already worked with Ms Park's original, and have only
added subcategory reference, a)b)c) etc. to this, together with my response.



Constituencies:

·a) Are the constituencies a correct division?
- Please list these for the benefit of At Large/ GA members of this list may
not know what are the current constituency divisions.

b) Are all DNSO interests adequately represented in the existing
constituency groups?
- The absence of a constituency in the DNSO representing the owners or
registrants of individual domain names is a persistent area of
concern for many participants in ICANN and since the DNSO has a distinct
role
within ICANN, the At-Large membership is not a substitute for direct
representation within the DNSO.

c) Do the current divisions aggregate individuals or entities with closely
aligned interests
and permit the development of focused positions?

·e) Should the constituencies be reformulated by combining user
constituencies?  By combining provider constituencies?  In some other way?
- see above - a new constituency in the DNSO is needed to represent the
owners or registrants of individual domain names.

· f) Is it up to each constituency to define its relationship with NC
representatives or should the DNSO/ICANN have some minimal mandatory
requirements for all?
- DNSO must put all constituencies on the same terms. If not, there will be
accusations by members of disenfranchisement.

· g) What happens if an elected NC rep does not attend NC meetings, ignores
constituency members? Is this up to the constituency to address, or should
it be brought to the attention of the NC?
- It is not NC's role to sit in judgement on the merits of contributions by
democratically elected reps. Members are responsible for ensuring their reps
perform tasks they were elected to carry out.

·h) Are the constituencies fulfilling their role as open and transparent
channels of dialogue and discussion toward the development of community
consensus?
-

i) Do they allow effective development of collective positions of
those with similar interests?  Does this process promote the development of
overall community consensus?
- - if the community as a whole is not properly represented by current
constituencies, how can they promote overall community consensus?

·j) Does the current constituency division minimize the effectiveness of the
DNSO and NC?
- absolutely, - if the community as a whole is not properly represented by
current constituencies, not only effectiveness is compromised, but also
credibility.

·k)  Are the constituencies adequately representing the intended members?
Or
are there important parts of the Internet Community that may need better
representation?
- - see above - add a new constituency in the DNSO representing the owners
or registrants of individual domain names.
·
l) Should there be a constituency for individuals, and if so, how should its
membership be constituted?
- one man one vote electing one representative per 100,000 voters? (If the
constituency comprises 1 million, there would be 10 representatives)

m)  How do you ensure that individuals who choose to form an individual
constituency represent the vast interests
of individuals ?
- you can't. (You can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.)
Many people chose not to vote in elections and there is no way of knowing
whether those that do vote also represent the interests of individuals that
don't vote. This system would not discriminate against any individual by
age, race, nationality or gender, except perhaps children, who (I include in
the interests of accuracy), also own domain names...:-)

·n) No constituencies have been added since the original seven
constituencies
were recognized (provisionally) in May 1999.  What should be the ongoing
process for assessing whether the constituencies serving the goal of
providing appropriate forums for affected stakeholder groups?
- I propose an annual review.

-Joanna lane -