[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [discuss] FW: Re: S. 705

The support of the ACM Internet Governance Committee for an individual domain name
holders constituency was made clear in our proposal for a non-commercial
constituency in Berlin.

ACM-IGC did not address the method of constituency formation and recognition. In
my personal opinion, Antony makes a good point about the Paris draft having a
better approach to this problem. The current method does not encourage true
self-organization but fosters factionalism and allows the Board to play factions
off against each other.

I do not think Antony's swipe at Joop is justified. The IDNO was forced to deal
with the problem of how to handle the participation in IDNO of people whose stated
object was to oppose the formation of an individual's constituency. No other
constituency has had to deal with this problem. It created some awkwardness. The
group seems to have moved beyond that. Those problems should not be used against
the validity of forming an individuals' constituency, nor should they be used to
call into question the legitimacy of the IDNO as a nucleus for its formation.

The problems we have encountered in forming both the non-commercial constituency
and the individual constituency are both symptomatic of basic flaws in the
constituency-formation process articulated by ICANN. These flaws are most
detrimental to constituencies that attempt to represent smaller players who come
late to the table, as Randy Bush's prior post made clear.

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 18:36 23/06/1999 -0400, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
> >2. Currently, there is no way for new constituencies to form, short of
> >begging the ICANN Board.  The current brouhaha over an individual name
> >owner's constituency wouldn't be an issue, because Joop Teernstra would be
> >forced to go around trying to collect signatures (in other words, trying to
> >build a constituency), instead of spending his time playing god with his
> >mailing list.
> >
> Begging the ICANN Board is one method, which leads indeed to the
> unfortunate results that Anthony indicated. (BTW, nobody has been removed
> from the IDNO mailing list for more than 24 hours)
> Asking this DNSO GA to discuss the matter and vote on it is another.
> I have offered the use of my Polling Booth before.
> I am offering it again.
> The questions up for discussion are: Should there be a constituency for
> Individual Domain Name holders as legitimate part of the DNSO? Should the
> DNSO recommend to the ICANN Board that such a constituency be admitted?.
> We have heard some arguments against. (1.Individuals who do not want to be
> classified, cannot be a group. 2. Individuals will get their representation
> in the AL membership ) The fact that these Individuals own Domain Names
> refutes both these arguments.
> Are there any more arguments?
> Anybody who would wish to speak  *for* an IDNO constituency?    Roberto? Demi?
> --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  , bootstrap  of
> the Cyberspace Association,
> the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
> http://www.idno.org