RE: [wg-review] Final Draft on constituency recommendation
At 02:43 10/04/01 -0400, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
>Members of the WG-Review:
>Sotiris and I have worked on the constituency recommentation. I am posting
>it for comment since this revision differs from what was posted yesterday.
>Please comment. We are hoping to finalize this one.
>Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board immediately call for the
>formation of an
>Individual Domain Name Holders' Constituency (IC).
The problem that I have with this sentence, is that it appears to ignore
that such a constituency has already been in a state of formation for 2 years.
The Board can do two things, according to the Bylaws:
1. Recognize a petition from the self-organizers of a constituency
formation effort OR
2. Create such a constituency on its own
I would prefer the phrase: It is recommended that the Board recognizes in
principle the need for an
Individual Domain Name Holders' Constituency (IC) and directs the DNSO
secretariat to assist with the constituency formation effort by instituting
an official IC mailing list.
The IC shall be a
>self-organized Constituency Group within the DNSO.
>To ensure that the IC is representative of its constituents and is
>self-organized, no existing ICANN organization or any other self-appointed
>committee/group, including, but, not limited to the NC or any present
>constituency within the GA, may direct the coordination of constituency
I have also a problem with the words "any other self-appointed
Any bottom-up constituency formation efforts starts around self-appointed
bootstrappers. Any other way is not bottom-up.
The above formulation seems to exclude any and all constituency
I suggest deleting that part.
To that end, those who are working to organize the IC
>should inform ICANN of those efforts by participation on an e-mail list to
>be established by the DNSO Secretariat.
In view of the experiences that the IDNO has suffered, this mailing list
MUST be moderated by impartial moderators.
IC organizers are reminded that they
>are required to operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and
>transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure
Yes. But should the recommendation just contain a 'reminder"? Or should we
say "The ICANN Board should make it clear that IC organizers are required
to operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner
and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness."
IT IS FURTHER recommended that the Board call for the
>establishment of the IC without delay in order to provide sufficient time
>for the IC to establish its proposal for the Board's recognition at the
>ICANN meeting in Stockholm.
That would be sweet.
During the formation process, the IC organizers
>should prepare without undue dely an appropriate statement(s) of their
>criteria for participation in the IC and their planned process for selecting
>Names Council members. These statement(s) will be distributed to the ICANN
>Board and posted on the ICANN web site.
In accordance with the text of the Bylaws this could read "posted on the
ICANN website for public comment".
I would like to add that not only the ICANN web site but also the DNSO
website should contain references to the Constituency organizing effort,
including links to the website(s) and mailing list(s).
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of The Polling Booth
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html