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

Re: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Chair

At 01:19 AM 9/08/1999 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Sun, Aug 08, 1999 at 03:56:15PM +0200, Michael Froomkin wrote:
>> As noted by many others in this thread, Sexton and Teernstra (yes,
>> nominated for tactical reasons by people with vested interests we should
>> all suspect) were in fact representative of
>> constituences otherwise denied a seat at the table, and still denied a
>> seat at the table to this day.
>This statement is meaningless.  See below.
>> If we are to rely
>> on the "spirit" of the text rather than its letter (and I agree this is
>> not in
>> any way a ridiculous position for anyone to take) then it seems to me
>> that the spirit of representation was well served by these nominations. 
>> I gather you do not agree.  May I ask why?
>The term "constituency" actually has two meanings in these 
>discussions -- 1) one of the components of the DNSO formally 
>recognized in the ICANN bylaws -- the "big C" Constituencies; and 2) 
>the generic term for any group that might be considered to have an 
>interest in these proceedings -- the "little c" constituencies.
>The number of big C Constituencies denied a seat at the table is
>The number of little c constituencies is infinite, and therefore the
>number of them "denied a seat at the table" is infinite.  Sexton and
>Joop have no a priori right to be considered over the other infinity
>of little c constituencies.
Infinity, eh? Of how many constituency formation efforts and petitions to
the ICANN Board are you aware?

>Furthermore, the little c constituencies supposedly represented by
>Sexton and Teernstra are not big C Constituencies for a *very* good
>reason -- both have been discussed since the very beginning of the
>DNSO formation, and both have remained contentious and as yet
>unapproved.  They may likely never be approved.

Likely?  Because it is better to keep the "contentious" constituencies out?
Or because K.Crispin will "formally" object?
You talk about a *very* good reason, yet you don't spell that reason out.

>>> opinion) the ICANN counsel on one side, and the NC on the other
(decided to
>>> allow the three gTLD (NSI) reps in as full `NC members. Most of us
noted that
>>> this was clarly against community consensus, passt compromises and any
>> The relevant community of which I am aware professes to be for
>> inclusion.  Yet important sets of constituencies are excluded.  
>Arguably, they are not.  For example, an argument against the IDNOC
>is that individuals will elect half the ICANN board, and therefore 
>individuals already have more representation than any single 
>Constituency, and thus it would be unfair to have an IDNOC in addition.
This particular argument has been refuted many  times now in this forum,
yet you keep trotting it out. 
The at large directors are a sop, dangling in front of us in an unspecified
Key decisions, "contentious" decisions, are now to be made by the DNSO.
Without the Individual Holders of Domain names having any voting
The grossly incomplete structure of the DNSO is bound to invalidate these
decisions later. 

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  , bootstrap  of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners