RE: [wg-review] 11 [IDNH] individual domain name owners, Report requested by Members of the WG-Review
Thanks for asking the questions below. I have responded to each, also below.
From: Joanna Lane
Sent: 12/30/00 6:18 AM
Subject: RE: [wg-review] 11 [IDNH] individual domain name owners, Report requested by Members of the WG-Review
Therefore, I think it would be very helpful if Gene and/or like minded
members would clarify the salient points along the following lines:-
1. Who are the groups of "real end users" you would exclude from DNSO?
My intention was to point out that a potentially affected group of interested users MAY or MAY NOT be an appropriate constituency. If it is determined that they represent a potential constituency, we need to consider what the criteria for INCLUSION are.
2. What are the technical qualifications you would introduce as a
barrier to entry to DNSO?
In the manner I believe you are asking the question, I am not suggesting "technical qualifications", more a "terms of engagement". As suggested by *certain* ICANN board members, ICANN's charter seems to be rather wider than originally envisioned or intended. I guess I am suggesting spome type of "quagmire reduction methodology".
3. Which of ICANN's functions would you say it is appropriate for "real
users" to comment on?
4. Conversely, which of ICANN's functions would you say it is
to "real end users" to comment on?
In answer to 3 and 4, I would start with two questions:
- What is an "end user"?
- What issues that ICANN has charter to address directly affect end users?
I think we start from there and build back toward terms of engagement.