RE: [wg-review] [constituencies] A proposal for reform

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

Joop:

Under your scenario, would the Name Holders pay 50% of the ICANN Budget?

Petyer de Blanc

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of J J Teernstra
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 8:39 PM
To: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: [wg-review] [constituencies] A proposal for reform


Dear WG-members,

I have expressed my agreement with Karl about the need for fluidity in the
constituency structure of the DNSO.
To achieve this, the Board needs to agree on a quick procedure to approve
new DNSO constituencies and to rebalance the NC voting power each time when
a new constituency would be recognized as a real stakeholder constituency.
On the other hand, I do not see it as realistic that existing power blocks
dismantle themselves to accommodate this wish , especially not the united
lobby of IP interests.

What I do propose is (and where hopefully  some consensus can form), is
to make a start with balancing voting power on the NC.

The interests of Name Holders need roughly to be balanced with those of the
registration industry,(ISPs, ccTLDs, TLD registries and SLD registrars plus
the IP interests)--currently 15 votes.
The Business constituency (small and big Biz), the NCDNHC and the Individual
DN Holders, could and should have an equal number of votes.

I propose that the current representation of the ISP's, TLD registries,
Registrars and IP lobby together, be reduced to 10 seats.
That Three Name Holder Constituencies (possibly united into a single
constituency) be also given 10 seats on the NC.

The ccTLD's could be given a separate status,one that would not tip the
registry-industry vs. DN holder balance in the DNSO, but give them instead a
separate representation on the Board, reflecting ICANN's need for their
co-operation.

Is this a realistic compromise between completely abandoning the
constituency structure and ending the frustration of always being outvoted
due to lack of representation?

It's well past midnight here, sooo.....

Cheers and Happy New Year to you all. May 2001 bring us the solution for a
better balanced DNSO.



--Joop