[wg-review] Covering letter to WG/ Constituency Report
Sotiris, Brian and all members,
Rather than propose any last minute changes in language to the existing
report, I have prepared a covering letter, or "wraparound", to put this work
into both historical and present day context for the Board, with thanks to
Brian Appleby for his suggestions. Anybody wishing to add their name to it,
please let me know by 5pm EST on Sunday April, at which time I intend to
post to the public comments. No time to check for typos, but will do before
To Members of the Board,
In the Green Paper, four principles to guide the evolution of the domain
name system were set out: stability, competition, private bottom-up
coordination and representation. In the White Paper, specific reference is
made to domain name holders on numerous occasions, so clearly they are a
factor in discussions.
In particular, Section 9 of the White paper, Competiton Concerns, states
"Entities and individuals would need to be able to participate by expressing
a position and its basis, having that position considered, and appealing if
Currently, individual domain name holders constitute a functional group
within the GA, but interested persons have neither a mechanism for appeal,
nor any way to voice their concerns at a decision making level alongside
other special interest groups.
UDRP is one example where individual freedom is being minimized and in turn,
the interests of all individuals are being adversely affected.
There are a number of DNSO operational failures that must be acknowledged
and addressed by both the Board and the NC if representation for
disenfranchised individual domain name holders is to improve.
The application process for the addition of new Constituencies is not
clearly defined, creating a barrier to entry, limiting the ability of those
willing to give serious attention to a proposal to succeed.
The status quo
Progress is being hampered by disagreements as to what would constitute an
appropriate process to add new Constituencies.
WG-Review has outlined a model in its Constituency Report. This is commended
to the Board as an appropriate example to follow. The proposal makes
provision for a framework that would be used for the addition of new
Constituencies within the existing structure of DNSO at this time, with
particular reference to individual domain name holders.
According to Section (insert) of the ByLaws, "If the NC undertakes
consideration of a domain name topic, or if a Constituency so requests, the
NC shall designate one or more research or drafting committees, or working
groups of the GA, as appropriate to evaluate the topic, and shall set a time
frame for the report of such committee or working group."
This process is not being instigated by the NC in a timely fashion.
Wg-Review being one example. The NC has not designated work to committees or
working groups drawn from the GA to address a number of issues that have
arisen, including the call for an individuals constituency.
The primary mission of members of the GA is to participate in research and
drafting committees and working groups. This valuable resource is freely
available yet underutilized.
Require the NC to foster more inclusive participation by the GA.
Inadequate and unfairly restricted access to DNSO mailing list servers and
other communications tools/systems which allow easy and effective
participation in the DNSO for all interested and useful parties and groups.
Allocation of ICANN/DNSO resources to provide ongoing ML servers and/ or
forum capability for new WGs and committees. A minimum of 6 should be made
Ongoing DNSO oversight. The DNSO Review process is more than just the
short-term diagnosis of a problem. The process also involves efforts at
proposing solutions, efforts at implementing solutions, and efforts at
reviewing the relative success of such implementation, including referral by
the NC to its Constituencies for comment.
An effort has been taken by the NC to terminate the life of WG-Review. This
is a catastrophic "operational" failure.
Extend the life of Wg-Review or charge the NC with creating a new and
ongoing Review Committee.
Thank you for your time in consideration of this matter.
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html