While there is much to comment on in the Review document I wish at this time to concentrate
on just the issue of whether an individual name holders constituency should be progressed.I
take some issue with the statement that there is not consensus on the need for a
IDNHC as in the Working Group only one solitary person opposed it and that was because
they though it should be open to all individuals not just name holders.
I do note
a couple of the existing constituencies have said they see no need for it and oppose
it. With all due respect to these submission no-one at all has been able to
articulate a substantative reason why individual who hold domain names should be
the only major stakeholder excluded from DNSO representation as a constituency.
It is apparent that individual who hold domain names are extremely affected as stakeholders
by DNSO and ICANN decisions such as the decision to have more gTLDs, to open up competition
in *.com and the UDRP.
I was absolutely appalled to read in the submission from
the IP Constituency the statement "However if this does go ahead then it should be
balanced by a new constituency for saner minds" - this is absolutely insulting to
myself and others who have rationally argued for such a constituency.
The IP Constituency
also tried to argue "By definition an individual has his/her own views so how can
3 NC representatives properly represent the views of a bunch of individuals?".
Well the gentleman who said this has just argued against the entire concept of democracy
as it has existed for hundreds of years. An individuals constituency is just
as capable of representing a bunch of individuals a a business constituency is capable
of representing a bunch of businesses or indeed an IP constituency of representing
a bunch of lawyers.
The argumenst by the IP constituency are so weak, insulting
and without foundation I beleive no weight should be given to them. If they
can present a more rational argument against I would welcome that.
So we come back
to the almost impossible to argue against conclusion that individual name holders
are a significant stakeholder in the decisions of the DNSO and ICANN. The question
is how should they be represented.
Some argue that they are represented through
ICANN at large elections but this is a red herring and not the same as hbeing a constituency.
Policy on DNS is meant to originate from the DNSO and it is important to have input
at that level. It is also worth noting at large members have no special say
in policy or procedures except once every coiuprl oe fyears elect a board member
per region.
Some argue that they are represented through the GA but this is also
a red herring. Firstly the GA is not a constituency and does not have the power
to elect Names Council reps - in fact as has become obviouys it has absolutely no
powers at all. Even if it did though it is a gathering place for people from
all constituencies (and those like me who fit in none) and is not and should not
be seen as a de facto individual's constituency.
Therefore I suggest the massive
preponderence of logic is that there should be an individual name holders constituency.
I recommend that the recommendation under III C be changed so that it not be a study
to identify issues to be addressed in order to determine *if* and how a IDNHC be
established but a far more focused study on what is the best structure for an IDNHC,
what core issues needs to be addressed in its structure and management and how best
to ensure widespread membership and participation.
There have been no coherent
or logical arguments put up against the principle of having a IDNHC constituency
and I believe that months or over a year of further delay on this question will merely
discourage more those who could positively contribute to a sucessful constituency.
The time has come (IMO) to say that in principle we believe a IDNHC is warranted
and long overdue and that the challenge before the DNSO is how to make such a constituency
as sucessful as possible rather than continue to drag up red herrings such as at
large members or the General Assembly.
David Farrar