The Task Force Review Draft Report mentions the need
to increase participation and representation within the DNSO. It suggests a
need to investigate and explore ways this may be achieved.Personally, I believe
the current Constituency model is the limiting factor. Specifying a set number
of Constituencies and making it difficult to add additional Constituencies is one
of the main factors limiting both participation and representation.
I suggest that
having the current system in place makes the whole system top down and that to rectify
the situation and increase both participation and representation, a more bottom up
approach must not only be given lip service to but applied in real and meaningful
ways.
One way I can see this happening is for the DNSO/ICANN to establish the minimum
requirements for a DNSO Constituency. This should involve a minimum set of
Articles for inclusion in the Constituency Charters/Constitutions. This would
provide for a consistant management model between all Constituencies. I would
also suggest a minimum number of members be specified for any Constituency to maintain
their position within the DNSO. My own idea for this would be to have a minimum
with a sliding scale for larger Constituencies to be able to nominate more representatives
to the Names Council. However, if we remain with the model of each Constituency
having the same number of representatives on the Names Council, I would consider
it imperative that a minimum membership number be assigned for any Constituency before
they may nominate representatives to the Names Council. There was concern
expressed about this idea within the DNSO Review Working Group, predominately as
the suggested figure was 500. It was thought this would negate the position
of the ccTLD Constituency. However, it would be any easy matter for each ccTLD
to have more than one member within the Constituency to make up the required numbers.
The same would be true for other Constituencies.
This forces the Constituencies
to enlarge and provide more participation and to be more representative of the groups
they involve.
It is my contention that once the minimum requirements are set for
any group to submit an application for representation as a Constituency, that such
submission would be automatically approved if the minimum requirements are met.
The empathise would be on the submitting group to ensure they meet the requirements.
There should not be any top down hinderance to any group becoming a Constituency.
It
is my belief the DNSO Constituency model should be expanded to accept a large number
of differing Constituencies, not only an Individual Name Owners/Holders Constituency
but also any other interested groups that can achieve the minimum requirements.
I believe that providing mechanisms to allow Constituencies for IDNO/H, Web Masters,
Advertisers, Network Administrators, Hostname holders and other specific groups that
are too numerous to list here would dramatically improve participation and representation.
They are all users or players on the Internet and are directly affected by ICANN
decisions.
Although the AtLarge or GA could be institutions such groups could join,
they are not specific or defined with a common interest narrow enough to provide
for effective working relationships.
By allowing an expansion of the Constituency
system within the DNSO, ICANN would be enabling and empowering such diverse groups
so that they could contribute and work together to make more effective recommendations
and suggestions to the ICANN Board.
It is my personal view the current system places
too many restrictions to either be truly representative or to enable mass participation.
Dassa.