Re: [wg-review] Covering letter to WG/ Constituency Report

[Luca Muscarà <muscara@unive.it>]

Dear members,

I'm glad to give my full support to the "wraparound" letter.

Happy Easter !


Luca Muscarà

Joanna Lane wrote:

> 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
> I post.
>
> Regards,
>
> Joanna
>
> 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
> adversely affected".
>
> htt://www.icann.org/general/white-paper-05jun98.htm.
>
> 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.
>
> These include:-
>
> Issue 1:
> 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.
>
> Recommendation:
> 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.
>
> Issue 2:
> 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."
>
> Status Quo:
> 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.
>
> Recommendation:
> Require the NC to foster more inclusive participation by the GA.
>
> Issue 3:
> 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.
>
> Cause:
> Unknown.
>
> Recommendation:
> 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
> available immediately.
>
> Issue 4:
> 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.
>
> Status Quo:
> An effort has been taken by the NC to terminate the life of WG-Review. This
> is a catastrophic "operational" failure.
>
> Recommendation:
> 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.
>
> Joanna Lane
>
> http://www.internetstakeholders.com
>
> WG-Review Member.
> GA Member
> @Large Member
>
> --
> 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



--
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