> Motion by Chris
McElroy &
David Farrar
> "The WG Review has reached a near consensus
> >that a new Constituency be added to represent Individual Domain Name
> >Registrants. This WG has not addressed the matter of how to implement
this
> newConstituency, neither has
it proposed what group should represent them, nor
> >how it is to be formed. We only present that one should be formed
or
> >selected within six months.
> We specifically propose a dedicatedworking
group be set up to come up with specific proposals and options
> on the structure and functioning of the constituency.
>
> >We ask that this process be expedited in this
> >way because we believe it to be an oversight not to have included
them in
> >the process from the
beginning. Furthermore, we hope this matter would be put
> onthe agenda as a top priority
and that public comment will be sought on how
> thisconstituency shall be formed.
> How an individual domain name registrants constituency shall contribute
to the funding of ICANN and
> the DNSO needs to be examined by the dedicated working group. There
> is a view that such registrants already indirectly fund ICANN and
DNSO
> through their domain name fees which largely fund the Registrar,
> Registry and ccTLD constituencies and this should be evaluated and
> negotiated with those constituencies."
>
> Statement by Joop Teenstra>
>
> > >The @large is
> > >1. adisorganized group of
all Internet users' diverse interests.
> > >2. without Charter or Mission statement
> > >3. without means of the members to contact each other
> > >4. subject to a Study that may reduce its representation on the
Board ordo
> > >away with it altogether
> > >5. represented by Directors that may be representing interests
directly
> > >opposed to typical DN holders' interests.
> > >6. top-down and controlled by ICANN staff.
> > >7. Unable to provide policy formulations to the ICANN Board
> > >
> > >An Individual Domain Name Owners constituency is:
> > >1. formed naturally by people with a common interest-- bottom up
and in
> > >control of its own Charter and destiny
> > >2. part of the DNSO where Domain Name Policy initiatives are developed
> > >3. a place where any Domain Name Owner gets a chance to be part
of the
> > >policymaking process, (and get the results to the attention of
the Board)
> > >via its own elected officers
> > >4. a counterweight in the DNSO, giving it an opportunity to be
> considerablymore legitimate
than it is now.
>
> >
>