Re: [wg-review] Preliminary Report - 11. IDNH

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

Preliminary Report on a constituency for individuals - WG-Review

This is a preliminary report, and has not been reviewed by the membership
before submission. While the poll material is public and reflects as much
objectivity as possible, the opinions and conclusions drawn are the views
of the author, and cannot be called "the results of the group" until the
group has discussed and ratified them and any changes that may be
incorporated.

Material comes from group discussions and two polls - one run through
pollcat.com, and one run in a voting booth  designed for more secure results.

Among the questions referred to this WG by the task force is the question:

Should there be a constituency for individuals?

Of the 31 respondents, 29 answered "yes". In a similar poll run in the more
secure polling booth, 37 of 40 respondents answered affirmitavely. Due to the
volume of material presented on this issue, it was requested and approved as
it's own topic in the report format by the WG.

-------------------------------------
The following material has not been formally voted on at this juncture.
While it appears to have wide support, until such a vote is completed,
it cannot be considered either a majority position or a consensus.

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 new Constituency, 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 dedicated working 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 on the agenda as a top priority
and that public comment will be sought on how this constituency 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 clarifying the difference between an IDNH as a
constituency of the DNSO and at-large membership in ICANN

The @large is

1. a disorganized 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 or do
    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
    considerably more legitimate than it is now.
-----------
Greg Burton





--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html