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

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 10:14:44PM -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> No, it has been asked, the answer is NOT what we wound up with. The answer
> was ignored by the ICANN Bod

Nope.  That is simply not true.

[...]
> 
> > The current constituencies are there because there were people
> > who made the case for their existence.  They are ad hoc, but that only
> > reflects an underlying reality: the parties that have an interest in
> > domain name policy come in ad hoc groupings. 
> 
> That statement is, at best, disingenuous. The places, for the current
> constituencies, were created, out of whole cloth, by the ICANN BoD, using
> criteria that no one has been able to discern.

Sorry, that statement has no relationship to reality.  The BoD did *not*
create the constituency structure out of whole cloth, at all.  A
constituency structure was proposed as part of the organizational design
of the DNSO at the very first formation meeting, in Barcelona, and was a
major discussion item throughout the process -- one might say that it
has essentially been a discussion item continuously since then. 

And in fact, of course, the ICANN BoD didn't have much to do with it
anyway -- the Bylaws provisions for the DNSO were drafted by the ICANN
staff and legal counsel, and followed the two most popular draft DNSO
proposals fairly closely, picking important features from each.

> All external evidence
> discredits your statement.

Roeland, I'll be charitable and say that you simply don't know what you are 
talking about.  Go to

http://www.dnso.org/history/www.dnso.org/docs/barcelona-meeting-notes.html

There you will find several proposals involving constituencies.  Here's
Amadeu's proposal for the structure of what we called in this meeting
the "excom" or the "DNSO board", which later came to call the "Names
Council":

      15 member board
      Registries: 5 [6] 
      Registrars: 2 [3] 
      Network connectivity etc: 4 
      Commercial users: 3 
      Trademark interests: 1 
      At large: 3 [2] 

Here's some further interesting quotes from that page, on the same topic:

   Bernard T. (representing ccTLD interests) proposed alternate excomm  
   allocation to constituencies: 

   19 member board
   Registries:  8 (regional integrity) 66% funding 
   Registrars:  3  (11% funding) 
   Network connectivity etc:  3  (11% funding) 
   Commercial users:  2 (11% funding) 
   Trademark interests:  0 (ex officio standing committee) 
   plus 
   At large:  3  (users and at large) 

   [heated discussion followed] 

   Kent C. later presented a more balanced proposal for contrast: 

   19 member board 
   Registries: 3 (fund ICANN costs related to dns administration) 
   Registrars: 2 
   Network connectivity etc: 2 
   Commercial users: 2  
   Trademark interests: 2 
   plus 
   At large: 8 

   Moratorium on heated discussion called.  New Topic: Decision processes 

I recommend to everyone that they look over this history.  We've been 
around all these posts multiple times before.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain