Report of the Review Working Group -- Topic:
ConstituenciesMarch 2001; Editor: Danny Younger
INTRODUCTION
While
an editor's synopsis has been provided at the end of this report, anyone reading
the chronicle of the Review Working Group's comments on constituencies cannot fail
to arrive at certain self-evident conclusions, namely: the DNSO is deemed by
all to be a dysfunctional body, and that necessary changes will require either the
abolition of the current constituency structure or the formation of additional
constituencies in order to resolve the issue of appropriate representation.
Every
effort has been made to include all comments by every participant to the Review Working
Group on the topic of constituencies. These comments are presented as if in
a threaded topical forum so that each given subject may be examined to the fullest
possible degree.
EXPECTATIONS
As one who does have the job
of examining and passing on the output of the DNSO - I expect well formed policy
decisions, including analysis of the competing views, and backed by procedures that
give me confidence that all parties have had the opportunity to fair participate.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00192.html
I
support the determination of group opinion by the use of solid procedures that include
the placement of clearly articulated issues before a clearly formed electorate who
make clear votes that are counted. As it stands, as a member of the ICANN Board of
Directors, I am very unlikely to give credence to any matter that comes out of the
DNSO unless I see objective data indicating that the DNSO has reached its conclusion
by something better than the hand waving that has to date been called "consensus".
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00722.html
THE HISTORY
Review
Working Group members felt it necessary to provide a background on the development/creation
of the current constituencies for the benefit of newcomers to the group:
Whilst I agree that a picture of ICANN redesigning itself is unlikely
(but, not completely impossible), it is completely feasible that the DNSO could be
redesigned by ICANN. After all, ICANN gave birth to the DNSO in the first place.
This is especially true since there still exist a few different DNSO templates (I
presented one of them). Many of us have been working on these for quite a few years,
from before DNSO genesis. IMHO, most of the current DNSO structure problems comes
from the fact that, ICANN created the current DNSO by mashing a few of those templates
together, without understanding. There are some important pieces missing and others
don't fit at all/well. Although I am loath to use analogy, it is like building a
car, having pieces left over, and wondering why it doesn't run right, if at all.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01577.html
ISOC runs ICANN. It doesn't need any constituency, much less another one in addition
to the NCDNHC, which it already controls. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00078.html
Let me second these statements and add that I am not surprised of the
outcome. Open WGs on sensitive subjects are cans of worms. The first such can was
opened during the IAHC's days - and the US DOC banged their fist on the table and
did whatever they wanted to do, disregarding the discussions. 4 years later I feel
like it's deja-vu... http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01439.html
Instead, the relevant questions are who controls ICANN, and what does
ICANN do, not the fine rhetoric and bizarre and baroque internal representational
structures are enshrined in the bylaws. Whoever controls ICANN can modify the bylaws
as they see fit, and nits about the exact circumstances under which the bylaws can
be changed, or the legal constraints on bylaw changes, do not materially alter this
fundamental point. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02403.html
I was and still am in opposition to the current DNSO structure, a position
I share with many people not present on this list who dropped out of the DNSO when
it became apparent that its structure was being rigged by CORE and the ICANN Board,
or who were forced out of the DNSO by them. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00081.html
It is that some, within the DNSO and the ICANN, have jerrymandered "constituancies"
and have then called *those* the only visible stakeholders. We all know that there
are some GLARING holes in that stakeholder model and that they were left there intentionally
and we even know what those intentions were. Whats more, some of us have suspected
that, since the paris-draft DNSO proposal compromise. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00042.html
In fact, the current constituency was developed bottom up -- the constituencies
that exist (with the sole exception of the NCC) are there because the members considered
the DNSO important enough to participate in from the very beginning. The constituency
structure was not imposed from the outside -- it was developed by actual "stakeholders"
fighting it out (literally). Moreover, some constituencies exist because there
is a legitimate special place for them in the ICANN structure -- the registrars and
registry constituencies are composed of a very restricted set of entities with very
special contractual relationships with ICANN. The current constituency structure
is in fact a very hard-fought compromise. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00047.html
Many stakeholders involved in the NewCo process were denied the right
to have a constituency. This includes especially the independent domain name holders
and the non-commercial domain name holders, who were represented throughout the formation
of the DNSO. All stakeholders who were not chosen by CORE and ISOC to have constituencies
were eliminated from the DNSO, which was created by CORE through a series of manipulated
and jerrymandered meetings. There was no bottom-up process whatsoever. The
fact that there was fighting is evidence that it was not a bottom-up process and
that the structure of the constituencies was indeed imposed from the outside. If
the constituencies had been allowed to develop naturally there should have been no
fighting. All would have been accommodated. Instead, the winners of the fight (who
won because they were aided and abetted by the Board, which had destined the DNSO
for certain interests) pushed out their opponents. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00050.html
A few of CORE's involvements in proposed and/or accepted new TLDs: --
CORE applied for .nom. -- CORE was the proposed registry operator for .health. --
CORE is the proposed registry operator for .museum. -- CORE was the proposed registry
operator for .post -- CORE is a member of the Afilias consortium of domain registrars
(CORE members) which applied for .info, .site, and .web -- CORE is a technology partner
in the context of .air. -- CORE is a proposed outsourcing partner for .biz, proposed
by iDomains, a project of a CORE member. CORE represented 98% of the testbed domain
name registrars in ICANN's initial registrar accreditation. CORE represents over
50% of domain name registrars presently accredited by ICANN. CORE is incorporated
in Switzerland in order to evade the U.S. antitrust laws. CORE was created by ISOC,
and officers of CORE are also officers of ISOC. CORE and ISOC together created ICANN.
CORE members proposed the DNSO constituency structure, and formed the DNSO through
meetings called by CORE. Ken Stubbs is the President of CORE. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00539.html
Here you are making a mistake. You apparently do not know the history
or actual composition of the NCDNHC consitutency, which was given to ISOC by the
ICANN Board and which is still controlled by ISOC. Even its mailing list is run by
ISOC. To give another constituency to ISOC would be a further outrage. ISOC should
not have even one, since it is a second-level organization whose members fit into
other constituencies (registrars, ISPs, etc.). Giving ISOC the NCDNHC was like giving
ISPC, an association of ISPs, its own constituency. It should never have been done
in the first place. Suggesting that ISOC be given yet another constituency is a grievous
error. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00054.html
The places, for the current constituencies, were created, out of whole
cloth, by the ICANN BoD, using criteria that no one has been able to discern.
Also, there was at least one other constituency that cried out for creation...it
wasn't. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00268.html
Go to http://www.dnso.org/history/www.dnso.org/docs/barcelona-meeting-notes.html
There you will find several proposals involving constituencies. Here's Amadeu's proposal
for the structure of what we called in this meeting the "excom" or the "DNSO board",
which later came to call the "Names Council": 15 member board Registries: 5 [6] Registrars:
2 [3] Network connectivity etc: 4 Commercial users: 3 Trademark interests: 1 At large:
3 [2] Here's some further interesting quotes from that page, on the same topic: Bernard
T. (representing ccTLD interests) proposed alternate excomm allocation to constituencies:
19 member board Registries: 8 (regional integrity) 66% funding Registrars: 3 (11%
funding) Network connectivity etc: 3 (11% funding) Commercial users: 2 (11% funding)
Trademark interests: 0 (ex officio standing committee) plus At large: 3 (users and
at large) [heated discussion followed] Kent C. later presented a more balanced proposal
for contrast: 19 member board Registries: 3 (fund ICANN costs related to dns administration)
Registrars: 2 Network connectivity etc: 2 Commercial users: 2 Trademark interests:
2 plus At large: 8 Moratorium on heated discussion called. New Topic: Decision processes
I recommend to everyone that they look over this history. We've been around all these
posts multiple times before. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00281.html
The only connection between that DNSO.ORG and the current organization
is the domain name that Amadeu donated to the ICANN, after the smoke had cleared.
Whilst y'all were playing the disenfranchisement game, in Barcelona and Monterrey,
Some of us were working on the proposal that I linked in earlier. Then you guys played
three-card monte with the competing proposals. The whole mess went on to Paris, Singapore
and later to Berlin. Yes, all proposals had something about contituencies. However,
every proposal had a more flexible model then the one ICANN built. I wont mention
the venue where you played switcheroony with the DNSO.ORG proposal. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00308.html
Yes, that is what "consensus" has been used for in ICANN. The DNSO and
all its sub-structures were created by tyranny of the chair, with the chair always
in the hands of the same group of people - CORE - who had a pre-determined agenda
(the stacking of the constituencies) and a pre-determined plan of action (to get
the chair of every committee, by posing as disinterested individuals, and then use
"consensus" for approving CORE's policies). http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00728.html
The ICANN interim Board was directly responsible for tilting the balance
of power towards the DNSO formation proposal which eventually won out, and the constituencies
defined by that winning proposal, together with their representation in the Names
Council, were a result of that skewing by the Board. There were, in matter of fact,
just as many spokespeople for independent domain name holders and users present at
DNSO formation meetings as there were for business and trademark interests, but they
were not supported by the Board, which made the ultimate decisions about constitutencies
and therefore the NC. When the Board of Directors allows only one constitutency for
assorted domain name holders and end-users, and six for business interests (infrastructureal
and otherwise), there can be no natural sorting-out of the political strength of
the actors. Furthermore, to portray the formation process of the DNSO as a natural
political one is a distortion of the actual process that occurred, which was not
natural. The over-represented interests, both in constitutencies and in the NC, were
abetted at every stage by the Board. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00358.html
The ISPs will never agree to ICANN control over the root zone or anything
else unless they have a strong veto power over anything that ICANN does. This is
true for other entities in the ICANN orbit, as well -- governments want veto power
over ICANN actions, registries want veto powers over ICANN actions, etc. The cold
fact is that ICANN sits in the middle of a bunch of entities who own their own stuff,
and don't really have to pay attention to ICANN. ICANN will only get somewhere if
it is *useful* to the ISPs, registries, governments, and so on. That is, there is
no mechanism by which ICANN can "give us a say", if by that you mean "give us some
control" (ICANN can of course provide a forum, but it already does that). But the
bottom line is that ICANN doesn't have the power to give any control to the end users.
This is a very fundamental misunderstanding that people have about the nature of
ICANN -- they think that they need to get in and restructure ICANN so that they can
get control. But that power isn't available to ICANN in the first place. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01422.html
Indeed, the persons claiming to represent ISPs and connectivity providers,
on the one hand, and commercial and business entities, on the other, are in no way
representative of even a sizable minority of the community they claim to speak for
in the DNSO, yet they were granted consitutencies and a place on the Names Council.
The same is true for users as for individual domain name holders. The ICIIU had grouped
together numerous organizations of non-commercial and non-profit Internet users,
some of them large and international in membership, and hoped to build a constituency
on this base. That was not in the interests of the Board and their chosen DNSO colleagues,
so we were not permitted to form a constituency, which was instead given to ISOC,
a so-called "non-profit corporation" which, however, receives most of its funding
from large corporations, hardly the sort of organization that should form the base
of a non-commercial constituency. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00360.html
If the ISPs chose to use an alternative root-zone, different from that
controlled by the ICANN, there's nothing the ICANN could do about it. The individual
ISPs could also get together and build their own IP address registry. Actually, so
could the ccTLDs. Some of them are national ISPs (jp?). ICANN has not yet been
handed control of the root-zone, so they don't even have that much. It is still with
/USG/DOC/NTIA. The whole point of this excersize is to get things where we DO have
a say. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01389.html
This is the same lame excuse that has been used for the past two years
to delay the formation of one of the most badly needed missing constituencies. Where
was his great concern about "inclusiveness" when the ISP constituency was formed,
or the NCDNHC, or the Business Constituency, none of which includes even one hundredth
of the stakeholders in its area? For that matter, when has he or anyone else from
CORE ever been concerned that the DNSO as a whole is the most blatently uninclusive
Internet body that ever pretended to make policy for the Internet? The truth is the
exact opposite of what he pretends. What he is concerned about is that, with the
acceptance of an IDNHC, there might finally be a modicum of inclusiveness in the
DNSO and ICANN. This is his great fear, because it could sound the death-knell of
CORE and ISOC's control of the Internet governance process. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00515.html
> Actually, this idea was a part of the original DNSO proposal. No,
it wasn't. The original DNSO proposal had constituencies from the start. The proposal
you are referring came months later, outside the mainstream DNSO development (which
is fairly well chronicled at http://www.dnso.org/history/www.dnso.org/index.html).
The original DNSO proposal is at http://www.dnso.org/history/www.dnso.org/docs/draft1.htm
If you take a look at it you will find the following constituencies proposed: A.
Registries in gTLDs [xx] members B. Registries in ccTLDs [xx members] C. Registrars
[xx members] D. Operators and service providers [xx members] E. Business organizations
other than operators and service providers [xx members] F. Organizations primarily
concerned with the interests of trademark owners [xx members] G. Consumers [xx members]
H. At large members distributed geographically: 1. Americas [xx members] 2. Europe,
Africa and the Middle East [xx members] 3. Asia-Pacific [xx members] The "xx members"
refers to the number of members on the "governing committee" that each constituency
was to get -- the numbers were left open for discussion purposes. This proposal was
designed to follow the requirements for the DNSO defined in the then-current ICANN
bylaws. There were constituencies in the proposal simply because the bylaws specified
that "stakeholder groups" would be represented. There was a major misunderstanding
about what was meant by the term "names council" in those bylaws. Later, the term
"governing committee" was replaced by the term "names council". Also, the 5 current
ICANN geographical regions weren't known then -- that's why only three were specified.
Later the "consumers" were merged into the "at large" -- there wasn't any clear way
to distinguish them. The geographical distribution specification was dropped because
the requirement was made general for all constituencies. Later still the at-large
constituency was dropped altogether -- there was only one person really fighting
for it, and that was me (you will see references to my lonely struggle in the notes
-- I was the scribe for the first two meetings, so I made sure it was recorded ;-)).
The primary opponents to the idea at that time were the ccTLDs, incidentally, who
were diligently trying to take control of the DNSO. The "fluid constituencies" model
was discarded as unworkable. It's one of those things that sounds good at a shallow
level, but when you got to the details no one could figure out a way for it to work.
It sounds good, but in fact it changes the voting structure, which means it changes
the decision mechanism, which means that the decision process is in relatively constant
flux, which means ultimately that you need someone to oversee the constituency changes,
but who would that be? The ICANN board was frequently cited as the ultimate oversight
body for constituency changes, but the ICANN board simply didn't want to be involved
in overseeing a constantly changing structure. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02572.html
THE
PROBLEMS
I rewrote what was posted earlier by one wiser than
I; Status Quo is the only unacceptable solution. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02377.html
The problem here though is that it appears that ICANN does not follow
the recommendations from any work group. The work groups ICANN deploys are controlled
by ICANN and appear to be facades for the public to believe that they are participating
or contributing to ICANN, when in fact there contributions mean nothing to ICANN.
My suggestion for a solutions here is that ICANN must immediately show that it is
changing its erroneous policy. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02102.html
This WG is intended to come up with answers that will fix the current
fiasco that is the DNSO. The structure is weak. The foundation's bad, the entire
structure threatens to collapse. I have witnessed one process hi-jacking after another. It
has led to a foundation built on quicksand. My analysis reveals that the DNSO has
only come to this juncture because everyone else has stopped playing with it. Two
years ago, I stated that this is one probable result of the process hi-jacking and
systematic disenfranchisement that created the DNSO. Such disenfranchisement is at
the core of the reasons that the DNSO has no credibility. None with the ICANN BoD,
the ccTLDs, or anywhere else. Some consider it nothing more than a political circus.
A circus of no substance whatsoever. This is matched by the fact that the DNSO has
not emitted anything remotely resembling substantive output, since its inception.
Yet, we are asked, in five short weeks, during one of the biggest holidays of the
year, to come up with a remedy, a fix, a curative, for the ailment of the DNSO. Moreover,
we are asked to do this as a result of a collaborrative effort. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01554.html
I'm here because the DNSO is dysfunctional and this working group is
a critical test of whether ICANN has either the capability or the will to fix it.
What needs most attention, in my opinion, is constituency structure. So I am glad
to see representatives of ccTLDs and advocates of an individual's constituency here.
Like the non-commercials, these groups are badly served by the current structure.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00031.html
The
system at the moment is certainly not bottom up. It is a full on top down system
with some illusion and lip service to being bottom up with the Constituencies. The
controls in place however negate even those concessions. The system needs to be opened
up and participants empowered more. Then I do believe we would see far more participation.
The model limits participation. It is inherent in the structure. I'm starting to
believe that was the intention. I can not see how the design was implemented without
realising the implications involved. It would appear to me, intentional. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02654.html
Constituency Contributions: 1 It continues to be troubling that only
2 of the 7 constituencies submitted reports from their constituency as a whole. As
Ms Swinehart commented in Marina Del Rey, the entire process has been "like pulling
teeth". The ccTLD, business, non-commercial, and registrar constituencies together
represent the vast bulk of constituency members within the DNSO. The failure of these
constituencies to report as bodies may have significant implications for the constituency
structure of the DNSO. It should be noted that the task force made every attempt
it could to involve the constituencies, and the failure of that attempt is not due
to negligence or lack of effort on the part of the review task force. This may indicate
a structural problem. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02389.html
This WG is about addressing the failure of the DNSO to operate its core
business, according to the DNSO charter handed down by the ICANN BoD. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01751.html
My reading of the by-laws and other documents indicates a proper procedure
in place but a complete failure to abide by it on behalf of ICANN. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01445.html
Checks and balances on implimentation as well as on onesided or arbitrary
decision making are lacking in the current DNSO/ICANN structure. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02605.html
The concept seems to be that up to this point the system has not worked.
DNSO has offered to review why it has not worked. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01458.html
The Names Council has so far proved itself incapable of developing policy.
The Council has taken the approach that it should primarily rely on policy work done
by the Working Groups and should ratify the consensus, where appropriate, that those
groups bring forward. Yet where a working group is unable to reach a conclusion (as
with Working Group B), or where the Names Council is unwilling to endorse a working-group
recommendation (as in the case of Working Group C), the council has been able to
say little. Its members wrangle for several hours at their meetings, adopt a policy
statement at a level of generality high enough to satisfy nearly all of them, and
leave the remaining issues to ICANN staff in the guise of "implementation." ICANN
staff then address the policy issues in the way they think best. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01333.html
Is the DNSO in need of reform? Total number of voters: 37 Agree 36 Votes
97.2973% Not sure 1 vote 2.7027% http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01312.html
In particular, the NC should > adopt policies that facilitate the submission
of proposals by Constituencies > and GA participants and that help the NC itself
evaluate such proposals once > they are submitted. It should provide reports to Constituencies
and evaluate > feedback on those reports that is received from Constituencies. The
NC > should, without the benefit of ICANN Board mandates, create timelines for >
various consensus-building activities and it should develop guidelines to > be used
by working groups and committees in their activities. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01494.html
The DNSO has not fulfilled its policy-development responsibilities to
any meaningful extent, and has played little role in domain name policy development.
On the one hand, Working Group A was able to develop a UDRP proposal, and the Names
Council did approve that proposal. But Working Group A's plan was the target of considerable
criticism on process and substantive grounds; the Names Council's approval was without
extensive discussion and amounted to a rubber stamp. The ICANN Board reacted by setting
aside the proposal in favor of a different one drafted by a registrars' group, with
the caveat that the new plan would be modified further by Louis Touton in consultation
with persons chosen by ICANN staff. The final plan owed little to the proposal that
emerged from the DNSO. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01333.html
A straight forward description of why the DNSO is ineffective would
be the natural starting point. I know this was attempted earlier but with no clear
end result. If nothing else it seems like most of us would agree with the shortcomings
of the DNSO. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00488.html
My sense is that there is a strong belief that the DNSO is a very sick
puppy and needs some serious care. Personally I'd like to take a vote on that question.
However the pro-"consensus" faction obviously won't mind if I simply declare that
there is overwhelming consensus on this point. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00727.html
Problem Scope: Asked "is the DNSO in need of reform", 36 out of 37 respondents
agreed. It seems clear that among those responding, the overwhelming sense is that
serious work is needed on the entire DNSO structure. In wide-ranging discussions
certain themes emerged, and the question of "consensus" - what it means, what it
is, and how it works - was one of those themes. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01831.html
Finally, it seems that Constituency members of the NC may have greater
or > lesser leeway to act from their respective Constituencies. If a > Constituency
NC member feels that they have little leeway to participate in > an NC consensus-development
effort, however, then that NC member will tend > to shy away from substance until
they have had an opportunity to fully > consult with their constituency. This further
consultation with the > Constituency could take days, weeks, or even months. In this
sense, many > DNSO Constituencies seem comfortable permitting their NC representatives
act > freely on matters of procedure but reluctant to permit them to do so on > matters
of substance. Constituencies should better organize themselves so > that their NC
members come to NC meetings with a greater sense of confidence > that the member
knows what their Constituency wants. Such NC members can > therefore act with fewer
further consultations. This may require > Constituencies to conduct consensus-development
activities of their own, > such as internal Constituency workshops. > http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01494.html
Suggesting that those who think the DNSO structure is wrong are a similar
group is not credible as so far it seems the only people who have defended the current
structure are members of the Names Council. Perhaps they are the flat earthers
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00204.html
Over the past eighteen months, advocates of an individual domain name owners' constituency
have sought to press their case to the Names Council and to the ICANN board. They
have failed so far, notwithstanding that the General Assembly has twice endorsed
the formation of a working group to examine the constituency. There are two reasons
behind this failure. First, absent enthusiasm for the proposal from major industry
players, the Board and the Names Council have felt no special urgency to move forward.
Indeed, it runs counter to the interests of current Names Council members to dilute
their influence by agreeing to the formation of additional constituencies. Second,
individual domain name holders, each of whom has only diffuse interests in Internet
governance, have little incentive to join or organize a constituency-in-formation,
and therefore group proponents have not succeeded in organizing individual domain
name holders into any broad-based and representative group onto which the mantle
of "constituency" could fall. Absent effective representation for individuals, though,
together with other measures to reduce the current Names Council skew in favor of
organized commercial interests, it is hard to argue that the DNSO policy making process
represents the domain name community in any meaningful way. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01333.html
As I understand one of the foundations of the whole review process,
"are the stakeholders represented?", per the white paper. I have to answer no in
that they cannot be unless there is a broader language communication base by which
to engage input. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01719.html
First, to the extent that it is reasonable there should be greater commonality
in constituency structures and procedures. For example, the DNSO web site should
have a central page where one can go to find out about joining a constituency. Constituencies
should have a public presence where queries can be made concerning membership standards
and so on. Internally, there should be common standards about what it means for a
statement to be a "position of a constituency" as opposed to a statement made by
some members of a constituency. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01487.html
One thing that concerns me greatly with the DNSO and the current constituencies
is the actual numbers of participants. I think it is very dangerous to have small
numbers of people making and recommending decisions that will affect numbers far
greater than their own sum of members. We should do everything possible to encourage
wider participation. Even if it means more work. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01392.html
There is no real effort on ICANN's part or the NC's part to get any
input from the public. There is simply a process put into place to make it "appear"
as if they sought public opinion. It is a scam. Straght-forward and simple. This
process is designed to scam and delude people into thinking that ICANN considers
what the public wants when reaching their decisions. As for my own efforts, I refuse
to further the deceit by my participation in it. Here we have examples of politics
at it's very worst. ICANN is not a legitimate nonprofit entity. They have participated
in scamming the public and the US Government into thinking they want to achieve any
fairness for the Individual Domain Name Holder or Individual User of the Internet.
They have represented Big Business, period. Having an Individual's Constituency
is not to their advantage, nor is having the opinion of individuals be the foremost
consideration when ICANN's BoD makes decisions. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01289.html
Problem Scope: Asked "is the DNSO in need of reform", 36 out of 37 respondents
agreed. It seems clear that among those responding, the overwhelming sense is that
serious work is needed on the entire DNSO structure. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01513.html
And today ICANN is playing only those melodies written by trademark
and registry/registrar businesses. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02286.html
Finally, when it came to the addition of new generic top-level domains,
the Names Council produced a statement of stunning generality. ICANN staff were hardly
constrained in crafting their own proposal to the board; they responded by preparing
a discussion document that requested public comment on 74 policy and technical questions
that would have to be answered in connection with the rollout of new TLDs. Those
questions, in turn, were just a subset of those that staff might have chosen to ask.
Almost none of the key policy issues raised by the deployment of new top-level domains
were addressed by the Names Council; they were left to be decided, either explicitly
or sub silentio, by the ICANN staff and board. Indeed, the key policy decisions relating
to adding new gTLDs, as well as a proposed country code top-level domain for the
European Union, are currently being handled by ICANN staff, under the supervision
of the board, with no DNSO participation. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01333.html
My own sense is that the DNSO has gone bust and that it will continue
to be bypassed as a policy making body until it is reformed. The sense that the DNSO
has lost credibility is manifest in the way it has been left out of nearly all of
the major DNS policy decisions of the last 18 months. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00049.html
Assuming that it is useful for the DNSO to search for consensus, finally,
the Names Council is not well-suited to the task of recognizing the degree of consensus
surrounding any given issue. The problems here stem from the DNSO's structural flaws,
which I will discuss below. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01333.html
Today there are obviously serious objections to the bylaws defined constituencies,
hence no consensus. Therefore an alternative must be found permitting a consensus.
Maintaining the constituency system in its present form is an obvious abuse of the
worst "democratic tyranny" since the tyranny of a clever minority. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00182.html
As part of this, I think that measures should be taken to reduce what
I called in another paper the "balkanization" of the constituencies. Any progress
towards achieving consensus is going to require that constituencies understand each
others point of view, and to that end there should be structures in the DNSO that
require cross-constituency cooperation. I have suggested that there be a formal "observer"
system, where constituencies have "observers" from other constituencies; some of
the secretariat functions could be shared; the GA physical meetings could be used
as commons for the constituencies, and so on. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01487.html
What's needed is a new process that finally does include all stakeholders
and whose results, like a UDRP, will be fairly regulated. However, it is my opinion
that this cannot be done through ICANN, which is tainted beyond redemption, even
at its creation. No non-profit California corporation, being used as a cover for
DoC and big business manipulations, can be turned into a fair and representative
international forum. What's needed is a real process, to replace the phoney one that's
been thrust upon us. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01012.html
*Should the NC take a more active role in managing the consensus-development
process, for example by giving working groups more defined charters and more frequently
reviewing the state of their work?* I doubt that it would be help the process for
the Names Council to seek to micro-manage the working groups. If the Names Council
cannot make effective policy decisions itself, it is unlikely to provide useful guidance
to the working groups. To the extent that the Names Council's perspective on an issue
is sharply different from that of a working group, it is at least as likely (see
below) that the problem derives from the Names Council being out of touch with the
domain-name community as it is that the working group is nonrepresentatve.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01333.html
Ah. Now, that sounds slightly familiar. The UDRP. The UnDemocratic Rich People. Yes,
indeed. We have already heard (from my own experience, and, the experience of others,
how (un)fair the UDRP is. That's what is mean by corporate law. Let the corporations
control the law, the governments, etc... http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01379.html
The WG-Review has noted that several groups of stakeholders had not
the constituency the importance of their issues deserves. This mainly includes the
individual domain name holders and the new specialized TLD applicants. To present
concrete propositions towards a quick aggregation of these two constituencies, the
WG- Reviews wants two specialized sub-Working Groups to be formed by people seconding
this motion, one for IDNH and one for STLDs. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00120.html
Only 2 respondents think that the members are "generally" adequately
represented, while 12 think that they are "sometimes or rarely" adequately represented.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00172.html
The Names Council is often perceived as a structural impediment to compromise and
bottom-up policy making because if one has enough votes on the NC there is no incentive
to compromise, or even to participate in working groups. This has been a noticable
factor in earlier WGs. I agree that there are structural problems with WGs as well.
However, I don't perceive off-topic posts to be a problem as serious as the others.
People just ignore them. Participants learn who is worth paying attention to and
who isn't. The more fundamental problem is that the NC has largely delegitimized
the status of DNSO working groups, particularly in the wake of its reaction to WG-C
on new TLDs. The NC has proven that it is afraid to allow WGs to start on the initiative
of DNSO members, that is is afraid to let them come to any conclusions that might
not be in accord with what the controlling majority on the NC has already decided
it wants, and that it would prefer to set up highly controlled "task forces," informal
if not secret committees (such as the WHOIS committee) and pre-defined agendas.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00614.html
I believe that we have near-consensus on answers to the following questions:
Does the current constituency structure impact the effectiveness of the DNSO and
NC? yes, negatively (14 agree, 1 disagree, 2 don't know) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00174.html
We believe that the DNSO in general and the NC in particular have performed
> below their potential for the evaluation period. When these organizations > were
originally planned, it was widely assumed that the NC would be the > principal focus
within the Internet community and within ICANN of both > expertise and of consensus-building
in the area of Internet domain names; > just as the Address Supporting Organization
(ASO) and the Protocol > Supporting Organization (PSO) are focal points within their
respective areas > of competence. Instead, the NC appears to have been more focused
on > procedures, administrative practices, and matters that are more related to >
its own process than to substantive matters. To the extent that the NC has > not
fully performed its substantive responsibility to develop consensus in > the area
of domain names, other ICANN organs and other bodies have been > required to step
in. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01494.html
This whole UDRP unfairness is because ICANN and the Registry hasn't thought about
anyone but themselves. They've left the netizens out of the decision making process.
Netizens like me and netizens like you. Now hopefully we can get back in the process,
have our concerns heard and something done about them. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00873.html
Additionally, when asked "Does the current constituency structure impact
the effectiveness of the DNSO and NC?" 26 respondents felt it impacted the effectiveness
negatively, while only 2 believed it effected it positively. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01537.html
Another obvious corollary is that, in the rough and tumble of the real
world, entities that have no effective veto on an issue can, and often will be, ignored.
This later situation obtains, of course, for the general user community, the community
of "individuals". They have very few effective vetos on any issue. And, of course,
what to do about that situation (if anything) is one of the themes of this WG.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00664.html
Looks like way too much happens too fast, or behind closed doors. This includes,
but is not limited to, trying to get rid of or make the "at large membership" (read,
small and/or non-commercial 'netizens'. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00053.html
I found this mailing list, and, the opportunity to participate, completely
by accident. I don't even remember how I found it. I suggest that many millions of
people who are clients of ISP's, across the world, would like to know what is happening
in this area, and, want to be ale to particpate, by being allowed to have their say,
and, therefore, input, into the procedures involved, but, who do not know anything
about this. Thus, the Internet, and, the agencies controlling it, such as ICANN,
appear to most people, to be dark and mysterious bodies, which operate in ways, and,
with policies, known only to the selct few, with the common people having no input.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00792.html
We've all been witness to various capture algorithms, wrt ICANN/DNSO. IMHO, this
is the main reason we are having this WG now. The ICANN/DNSO gets captured by a faction
and all the disenfranchised factions stop wanting to play. In business and engineering,
one starts off with some sort of problem description, followed a clear path to a
requirements definition. Only then, does one consider implementation details. We
have all seen a few years worth of wasted effort because we HAVEN'T followed that
process. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00472.html
There has never been any consensus and there never will be so long as
the user base of the Internet is not polled, something that ICANN is the last entity
in the world to want to do, as has been proven by its exclusion of any real end-users
from the DNSO, because such a poll would turn in results diametrically opposed to
those of the board. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00198.html
I suggest we start with threshold questions. For example: Is the DNSO
constituency structure representative of Internet stakeholder interests? My answer
is no. There are stakeholders who are not yet included; namely, individual domain
name registrants. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00166.html
I agree that the constituency structure is "a fundamental reason for
the DNSO's problems," a "failure" that "should be abandoned." As he points out, the
constituency structure has generated underrepresentation, because many interested
parties cannot find a home in any of the approved constituencies; overrepresentation,
because other parties can participate in multiple constituencies; and misrepresentation,
because the selection of constituency representatives obscures significant differences
of opinion within the constituencies. Certainly, the list of constituencies ICANN
selected seems skewed. There is a considerable overlap, after all, between commercial
entities and trademark interests; on the other hand, individual domain name holders
and ordinary Internet end-users, whom one would think have an interest in domain
name policy development, are not represented on the Names Council at all. The more
basic problem, though, lies not in the choice of particular constituencies, but in
the incoherence of the underlying structure. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00055.html
Clearly ICANN is operating in a monopolistic anti-trust type of environment.
Clearly that is why it is important for it to move in the direction of a more bottom
up, consensus oriented approach which includes those netizens who would be the victim
if they are not adequately represented in ICANN. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01015.html
One of the central problems with the consensus building process -- and
we discussed this issue in WG-D with no resolution -- is the fact that there is no
mechanism that encourages any party to compromise. What we've seen in the DNSO to
date are various interest groups putting forth party-line positions to the WGs, the
NC, and the Board. There has been virtually no attempt to forge consensus or seek
compromise among the participants themselves. While the NC and Board are supposed
to "recognize" consensus among the participants, they have too often been left to
act as judge of how best to balance competing interests. When the Board or NC judges
the merits of competing proposals, it only compounds the problem. The participants
quickly learn that they need not speak directly to those who oppose them -- only
to those who will judge them. Position papers have become the end-product, not the
starting points for a dialogue about how to reach compromise. In the current structure,
there is really no one to *broker* a compromise. "Peacemaking" is time-intensive
work. Who is going to run shuttle diplomacy among the various constituencies and
interested parties, honing draft policies until they really reflect a consensus?
Is that the WG Chair's responsibility? The NCs? Is it unrealistic to expect volunteer
participants to shoulder this task? It's also not clear that there is any incentive
for some to compromise, even if we solved the problems noted above. In other industry
self-regulatory schemes, there is the threat of unilateral action by the government
regulator if the community does not take some action. The resulting uncertainty about
what the regulator may do prompts the community to come together to present a consensus
position. In our case, however, ICANN cannot act absent community consensus. This
removes the threat of unilateral regulatory intervention in its entirety. Those who
benefit from maintaining the status quo have absolutely no incentive to compromise,
ever. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00116.html
New constituencies develop in reaction to policies, like clouds develop from evaporation
and condensation. Today, in the DNSO, they exist mostly as ready-made power blocs
and this has led to underrepresentation of real interests, those that happened not
to have formed into solid organizations yet. ICANN policies of the future will lead
to new common interests and such interests cannot be expected to instantly transform
themselves into well organized and well financed organizations. What is already well
organized and -financed today are Industry-financed organizations, such as DN Registrars,
ISOC and the IP Lobby. What is starting to get organized are money-making TLD registries,
such as the ccTLD's. But the Individual registrants who are at the other side of
the registration-contracts have the greatest trouble to organize themselves. What
can they expect to get in return for their trouble? They will need the DNSO's sympathetic
assistance to get on their feet, even more so than the non-commercial orgs.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00137.html
On the other hand, there is a near-consensus (all or all but one) on the following
statements (rephrased from the questions): The current constituency structure impacts
the effectiveness of the DNSO and NC negatively. The current process rarely or never
promotes the development of overall community consensus. All DNSO interests are not
adequately represented in the existing constituency groups. An individuals' constituency
should be created (though nothing resembling consensus on how). The constituencies
should be reformulated (again, nothing resembling consensus on how). Also of interest,
no one has been willing to say that the constituencies adequately represent their
intended members. Nor has anyone been willing to say that all important parts of
the Internet community are represented. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00147.html
Relationships is one word you can use to describe the Registrars interests.
I can think of other words to use but will try to stay nice. Those "Realationships"
have not shown any concern for individual domain holder's rights and have only served
to trample them up til now. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00160.html
The disproportionate representation schema currently in effect is problematic
if proposals for a wide base consensus are truly the goal of this WG, the DNSO, and
ICANN itself, and this issue must be addressed. As it is strictly a POLITICAL matter,
technical input is important but not primary in this case. For good, or ill, the
advent of the Internet introduced a whole slew of threats to established interests
(corporate and otherwise). The primary challenge for any consensus building proposition
would be to find ways to reconcile the various stakeholders -big and small- to the
idea of a NEW political horizon. This NEW political horizon must pay heed to the
concerns of large corporations and governments, YET it must also acknowledge & support
the rights of newer players who provide direction and inspiration (not to mention
the "end-user" moneys which keep it all going!). One of the primary issues which
is not likely to vanish anytime soon, is the Intellectual Property (in some cases
Piracy) disputes currently consuming resources and energies which could be put to
better use. One has to wonder whatever happened to Jon Postel's advice in the June
'96 Internet Draft "New Registries and the Delegation of International Top Level
Domains"," wherein Postel explicitly stated that "Domain names are intended to be
an addressing mechanism and are not intended to reflect trademarks, copyrights or
any other intellectual property rights." The current situation is out of control
with Big Business interests running amok and doing pretty much as they please. One
can't blame them for this, but one can criticize the lack of response to their oftentimes
unmitigated assaults on the rights of others. ANY governing body based on a CONSTITUTION
of some kind is obligated to ensure the rights and freedoms of all its members, not
just the DNSO council seats, or the ICANN Board. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00250.html
Trying to think outside the box, one could imagine wanting a structure
where: - The process of getting sensible proposals before the governing body allows
open participation, and allows the creation of expert groups to form those recommendations
based on qualifications, NOT representativity - An action could be adopted only with
a significant consensus of interests - Any action could be blocked by a significant
grouping of interests, but NOT by representatives of a single interest acting alone
I believe using representativity in the FORMATION of options is a mistake; people
who participate in a discussion need to be allowed to operate to the best of their
own personal ability to reach "results that make sense". Representativity is important
in the ADOPTION of courses of action. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00565.html
Moreover the constituency-based > structure of the NC ensures some degree
of internal tension, which itself > ensures that every proposal from any one constituency
is examined with > skepticism by at least one other constituency. Nonetheless, the
extent of > the NC's focus on process and the scarcity of it's substantive contributions
> to DNS-related consensus-development can not, we believe, be explained > entirely
by either its novelty or its somewhat adversarial design. We > believe that there
are some institutional causes of the NC's > underperformance, which should be correctable.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01494.html
Where does everyone think the Registrars GET the money they contribute? Simple math.
Just that one member has contributed significantly more than 10-25 dollars to the
process and continues to do so through renewals even with Registrars being allowed
to pull every dirty trick in the business. Hoarding Expired Domain Names to sell
them for more than mere Registration, using fronts to register names then adding
an additional charge to move the name to another registrar which is still owned by
the same registrar, and signing deals with companies like SnapNames to give them
first shot at expired names before the general public in return for a share of the
profits SnapNames makes on the expired names. If anyone should pay more of the associated
fees, look to the Registrars to provide it especially when they are allowed to be
as unethical as they want to be with no reprimands forthcoming from ICANN. They ignore
the problem as a way to endorse it.. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00402.html
III. Issues Identified / B. Constituencies. Regarding representation
constituencies and whether constituencies adequately represent all stakeholders.
Constituencies are required to operate in and open, fair and transparent manner.
ICANN and the DNSO functions on principles of bottom-up organization and seeking
consensus. However, as few of the constituencies publish membership lists or have
public mailing lists, it is impossible to judge whether they are representative or
not. In cases where member lists are available it is clear that some constituencies
fail to adequately represent stakeholders in all regions, some fail to represent
certain classes of stakeholder (particularly smaller entities.) Some seem to have
representative structures that favor large organizations or associations (while large
international associations should of course be represented in constituencies, they
are not organized on bottom up policy making principles and should not be permitted
to dominate any constituency.) It is ironic that the only constituency that does
operate in a fully transparent manner suffers from server issues management problems
(hopefully not an indication of what is being hidden from view by other constituencies.)
Example of steps that might be recommended in this section: Solutions: The Names
Council should require all constituencies to conduct ongoing outreach (membership
should been seen to be growing --where appropriate, some constituencies are naturally
limited.) Constituencies should be required to make continuous efforts to improving
geographic diversity. The Names Council should monitor charters to ensure they are
inclusive of all stakeholders and that all voices can be heard in constituency processes.
All mailing lists on which significant work of the constituency is conducted should
be publicly archived. A program of self reporting on the status of the constituency,
perhaps scheduled around ICANN's physical meetings, would be an appropriate means
of informing the Names Council and other constituencies on such issues. Basic constituency
requirements: -Charter creating an organizational structure that is inclusive of
all stakeholders; -Published membership records, including information about representation
by geographic region (members with full voting rights from all 5 regions should be
mandatory for all constituencies); -Clearly identified issues management processes
that ensure all stakeholders have a realistic opportunity to contribute equally and
effectively; -Public archives should be provided of all mailing lists on which significant
work of the constituency is undertaken. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02717.html
Excerpt from the DNSO Review Task Force Report v2: QUESTION: What/where
is the warrant from WG which supports the last clause in this statement: "If the
constituency is added, a procedure is needed to ensure that it occurs in a transparent
manner, is representative of its charter, and that the role of the General Assembly,
Non-Commercial Constituency, and the At Large members is looked at in relation to
the individual constituency. " http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02191.html
Tallied
Responses
33 Responses Reported
Count
Percent
Graph
1. Is a constituency
structure a functional method for subgrouping in the DNSO?
yes
15
45.45%
no
11
33.33%
don't know
7
21.21%
No Response
0
0.00%
2.
Does the current constituency structure impact the effectiveness of the DNSO and
NC?
yes, positively
3
9.09%
yes, negatively
26
78.79%
no
0
0.00%
don't know
2
6.06%
other
2
6.06%
No Response
0
0.00%
3.
Are the constituencies fulfilling their role as open and transparent channels of
dialogue and discu
yes
0
0.00%
generally
1
3.03%
sometimes
8
24.24%
rarely
9
27.27%
no
14
42.42%
No Response
1
3.03%
4. Do
the constituencies allow effective development of collective positions of those with
similar int
yes
3
9.09%
generally
3
9.09%
sometimes
9
27.27%
rarely
11
33.33%
no
7
21.21%
No Response
0
0.00%
5. Does
the current process promote the development of overall community consensus?
yes
0
0.00%
generally
1
3.03%
sometimes
3
9.09%
rarely
9
27.27%
no
20
60.61%
No Response
0
0.00%
6. Are all DNSO interests adequately represented in the
existing constituency groups?
yes
2
6.06%
no
22
66.67%
should
be represented
9
27.27%
No Response
0
0.00%
7. Do the current divisions
aggregate individuals or entities with closely aligned interest and permit
yes
1
3.03%
generally
3
9.09%
sometimes
18
54.55%
rarely
6
18.18%
no
5
15.15%
No Response
0
0.00%
8. Are the constituencies adequately
representing the intended members?
yes
0
0.00%
generally
4
12.12%
sometimes
10
30.30%
rarely
10
30.30%
no
8
24.24%
No Response
1
3.03%
9.
Are there important parts of the Internet Community that may need better representation?
no
0
0.00%
maybe
6
18.18%
these need better
25
75.76%
No Response
2
6.06%
10. Should there be a constituency for individuals?
yes
30
90.91%
no
2
6.06%
No Response
1
3.03%
11. How should
the membership of a constituency of individuals be constituted?
ICANN board should
create a structure
3
9.09%
NC should create a structure
2
6.06%
GA should create a structure
4
12.12%
Should self-organize
18
54.55%
other
5
15.15%
No Response
1
3.03%
12. Should the constituencies
be reformulated?
no
5
15.15%
yes - by combining provider constituencies
1
3.03%
yes - by combining user constituencies
4
12.12%
yes - by both
6
18.18%
yes - by other
12
36.36%
No Response
5
15.15%
Create your own
free survey now!
Surveys http://www.pollcat.com
http://www.pollcat.com/Lite/report.asp?report=report/ty0p1puu4w_a
UNREPRESENTED
But wait - are there any other groups that someone thinks aren't represented?
The Chartered TLDs, GOV/small governments, EDU/schools, endusers, small businesses,
and churches have all been mentioned so far in the poll. To me, this would indicate
that simply creating a constituency for individuals might solve the loudest and largest
problem, but without a structural change the problem will likely re-occur. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00172.html
One thing the TF should pay close attention to during the course of
this WG are the sentiments expressed by members of the largest, as yet unrepresented,
constituency: IDNH. "Vox populi, vox dei" http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00437.html
IMO opinion gentlemen of the NC, it is not IDNOs, @Large Members, or
GA members that are posting off topic and disrupting these proceedings, it is you.
Whether or not anyone on this list understands every technicality you hold so dear
is of no consequence. Whether the rights of Individual Domain Holders and Users of
the Internet is represented is the issue whether you choose to recognize that or
not. I apologize to those who represent ccTLDs and sTLDs if it sounds like I am not
recognizing your concerns as legitimate. Far from that I support your efforts 100%
and know you can speak for yourselves. My interest lies in fairness to individuals
which is long overdue. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00562.html
I have to question a process when it obviously isn't working well for
many people. Everytime someone decides to examine that you rush to defend a system
that the rest of us do not appreciate as well as you do. You act as if we were not
there then we have no right to question it. We do have that right and will continue
to question it until we have better representation. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00841.html
With all respect I have some problems with the logic you employ here.
First of all are you aware of the current structure of the DNSO. There are seven
classes of people who have special privileges (a constituency) and they are those
representing Registries, Registrars, ISPs, Businesses, IP Lawyers, country code Registries
and non cpmmerical organisations. Currently if you do not qualify as a representative
of any of the above businesses or organisations you get no representation. One suggestion
has been that individuals should be allowed to be represented and that one particular
group of individuals are those who hold domain names as that makes them directly
affected by domain name policy. This is not taking anything away from individual
who do not hold domain names but at least allows some individuals representation.
I believe individuals who are not domain name holders should also be represented
and that this is probably best through the General Assembly by giving the GA the
pwoer to also appoint members of the Names Council.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00817.html
There are a large number of organizations operating as third level registries.
Where hostnames are distributed either for free or on a commercial basis on SLD's.
There are also some domains used that have a large DNS zone associated with them
for both commercial and non-commercial uses. Some of the third level registries have
more hostnames in their zones than a large number of ccTLD's. Although it is possible
for the SLD owners to join either one of the existing constituencies or possibly
an IDNH/O if one is formed, the only option for users of their hostnames is currently
the AtLarge system. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01392.html
UNDERREPRESENTED
I agree that the constituency structure is "a fundamental reason for
the DNSO's problems," a "failure" that "should be abandoned." As he points out, the
constituency structure has generated underrepresentation, because many interested
parties cannot find a home in any of the approved constituencies; overrepresentation,
because other parties can participate in multiple constituencies; and misrepresentation,
because the selection of constituency representatives obscures significant differences
of opinion within the constituencies. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01333.html
Are all DNSO interests adequately represented in the existing constituency
groups? no (0 yes, 12 no, 5 suggesting other interests) Are there important
parts of the Internet Community that may need better representation? yes (12 with
suggestions, 3 maybe, 0 no, 2 no answer) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00174.html
For my part, I see the problem with the current structure of the DNSO
as a matter of representation of all of the relevant stakeholders. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00183.html
It is the overwhelming consensus of the opinions stated herein that
the power structure must be changed from the current status quo to the representation
as required in the white papers, to the true stakeholders http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01497.html
If we were to begin to list the problem areas with the DNSO structure,
what would that list look like? Should we see if we can agree on some particulars?
Bill of Particulars: 1. Unrepresented constituents 2. Unrepresentative constituencies
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00414.html
It's a good idea to gather these in one place. I'll add my point to the list below:
> 1. Unrepresented constituents > 2. Unrepresentative constituencies 3. Process does
not encourage compromise among parties with competing positions. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00416.html
If the Names Council is to take any action at all, therefore, it must
be on the theory that its members represents the domain-name community. Yet there
is no reason to think that the NC's current structure, which drastically under-represents
ordinary user interests, meaningfully reflects the relevant communities. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01333.html
In relation to the motion to which I understand that the above applies;
I believe that the motion included two parts - the first indicating that the "at
large" thing" is a waste of time, and, the second proposing a new constituency for
individual domain name owners/holders. I had proposed the motion, due to its content,
also include a proposal to institute a constituency for individuals (who are not
eligible to be in any other constituency), to ensure that all users of the Internet,
can have a say, via the constituencies, if the constituencies are to exist, and,
providing that the users of the Internet are made aware of the constituencies, and,
their right to particpate. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01508.html
It would be productive if ICANN were to make public statements supporting
the objective of a broader stakeholder representation. This would help integrity
and outreach http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02124.html
MISREPRESENTED
Here is a very narrow slice of what could become a broad bill of particulars:
a brief list of problems we face in the non-commercial constituency: 1. Too much
heterogeneity of organizations. We include everything from major universities to
peace and environmental and civil liberties groups, to non-profit associations of
TLD operations, ISOC chapters, professional societies, SDNP programs of the United
Nations, etc. Try coming up with policy positions that adequately serve all those
interests and viewpoints. The whole concept of a noncommercial constituency was an
afterthought, an incoherent category. 2. Unfair expectations relative to other constituencies.
Registrars and registries take in, collectively, a couple of billion dollars a year
in domain-name related revenue. ISPs, millions. IP and B&C are composed of professional
lobbying organizations with warchests in the hundreds of thousands if not millions.
And yet, the non-commercials, this heterogeneous group noted above, all of which
makes NO revenue from domain names, is told, "you must pay the same amount of money
as other constituencies to support the DNSO, and if you don't we'll unseat you."
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00481.html
On this list, I have criticized "the structure of" two constituencies: the registry
constituency (do you wish to defend that structure?) and my own non-commercial constituency,
which I said was "too heterogeneous" and based an "incoherent category." http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00504.html
c) Is the current Constituency Structure Balanced or Imbalanced? Despite
its bewildering situation caused by WG timeframe controversy and some members' lost
belief in Review WG's impact on future policy implementation process, Review WG members
have strive to solve the issues DNSO confronts. Many point out that the current constituency
structure is imbalanced. This concern is well noted in Milton Mueller's note # 2
[Appendix 5]. To heal this imbalance, WG members suggested several constituency models
such as IDNH/O or Small Business Constituency, or TM owners Constituency etc.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01332.html
UNREPRESENTATIONAL WEIGHTING
1. In the DNSO/BC I have one vote as a one employee business. Disney
three. AT&T three. I am therefore worth a lot of AT&T employees. 2. you say Jopp's
proposed IDNO would represent million of people. It means that an IDNOC member woud
reprensent 100.000 individual domain name holders. Seems fair when comparing with
the one NCC member with 80.000. 3. you support a second Constituency by the ISOC.
We are probably 5000 ISOC Members. It would mean that 1 IDNO represent 1/22.000.000
of a constituency, 1 NCC remote individual 1/12.800.000 of a constituency, and one
ISOC Member 1/5000 of a constituency http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00091.html
Should the constituencies be reformulated? yes (3 no, 12 yes (differing
answers as to how), 2 no answer) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00174.html
Certainly, the list of constituencies ICANN selected seems skewed. There
is a considerable overlap, after all, between commercial entities and trademark interests;
on the other hand, individual domain name holders and ordinary Internet end-users,
whom one would think have an interest in domain name policy development, are not
represented on the Names Council at all. The more basic problem, though, lies not
in the choice of particular constituencies, but in the incoherence of the underlying
structure. Even if nobody were excluded, there would be no reason to think that we
could reflect the views of the domain name community by identifying a set of activities
necessary to, or enabled by, the domain name system or the Internet in general, collecting
industry actors performing each of the activities on the list, and then giving equal
votes to each group. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01333.html
Communicate to the NC the terrible imbalance built in to the constituency
structure, with business lobbying groups given 4 of the 7 constituencies, and non-commercial,
educational, civil rights and other interests stuffed together into a single constituency.
Recommends allowing virtually any group of like-minded people to form a working group
that produces policy recommendations, but finding a way to have the GA or some other
appropriate forum filter the WG recommendations before they are passed up to the
NC. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01333.html
In order to handle those whom do NOT fall into the above? Rather, that is my presumption.
The KISS method would merge all of those into B&C, that being the super-class. Otherwise,
specific factions of the B&C gather unwarranted NC reps. Budget contributions
appear arbitrary anyway. Who portioned the pie that way and why? I have also
held, and still hold, that gTLDs need to be held at the same level as ccTLDs. In
short, that there should not be a difference in the degree of respect with which
they are treated. It is simply that non-ccTLD operators are treated so abysmally
and ccTLD operators want no part of such treatement (I don't blame them). I
have always argued that there are no gTLDs, that all TLDs are chartered, with some
having more open charters than others (lack of enforcement). That view adequately
eliminates gTLD as a separate constituency. IMHO, this is much needed. Yes, I think
TLD operators may deserve special representation, but not three constituencies.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00566.html
But there is no algorithm by which the representational weight of the different stakeholders
can be compared http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00190.html
Should there be an eighth constituency for Individual DN holders, or
should some of the overlapping and duplicated interests be collapsed into single
constituencies? If the IP constituency stays as is, would its relative influence
in the NC increase too much? Should they be entitled to only one NC rep? http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00093.html
The idea that only a few people be represented and be given more weight
than other groups is not only ridiculous but smells of the type of organization that
Joeseph Stalin would have approved of. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00805.html
It is not at all difficult to demonstrate that the ISP constituency
is an interest grouping of *some* ISP's and that the Business Constituency is an
interest grouping of Businesses heavily weighed in favour of a few early players.
Neither have the numbers that help them to credibly represent the interests that
they purport to represent. At best they provide a *framework* for a fairly weighed
representation of such specific interests in the future. With the NCDNHC it is problematic
that IP-players have played such a prominent role in its bootstrap phase and that
an active registrar-player can dominate the proceedings by representing a non-profit
boating-club, but speak and act as a Registrar apologist. With the CA/IDNO it is
no different. As long as it remains small, it is vulnerable to capture or sabotage
by people who put on an Individual DN holder's hat, but who act on behalf of opposing
or hostile interests. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00498.html
I certainly agree that the DNSO is fairly dysfunctional and I strongly
support reforms which at a minimum involve adding on an IDNH constituency, giving
the GA a more meaningful role and also a look at the weighting of votes to each constituency.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00521.html
Not that I am proposing they be abolished but just pointing out they are not the
only way to have representatives. One could quite seriously set up parties or competing
organisations which would put up candidates for election as our representatives.
Here in the DNSO we have seven constituencies based on groupings of interest which
clearly do not cover all those interested and affected. Also all constituencies have
an equal vote when their relevance to the DNSO may not be equal and the number of
people they represent may especially not be equal. Oh I agree one should have
representatives and for that reason also at this point in time would not support
abandoning formal constituencies as they are useful. But we really do need to make
sure that other constituencies can be added on, defunct ones can be removed and most
of all a method of allocating voting strength. I don't think the answer is
simply to add on one or two more constituencies and give them three NC reps each
and say that's all folks. We do need to also look at the overall balance of power
based on arguably similar membership of some constituencies. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00548.html
The problem is deeper, much deeper, than the simple fact that there
is no individual's constituency. The real problem is that the existing constituency
structure has been deliberately gerrymandered to augment the power of some groups
and diminish or eliminate the influence of other groups. Under the current structure,
all you need are ten solid votes on the Names Council. If you have that, it doesn't
matter at all what other constituencies think, nor what the "consensus of the Internet
community" is. You can just block anything you like, or ram through anything you
like. It is a travesty to call the current DNSO a "consensus management" process.
I think earlier comments were saying something similar. It is a political process
in which control of votes counts, nothing else. I will go a bit further and indicate
who controls the votes. There is a longstanding axis composed of the IP, B&C, Registrar
and Registry constituencies. The ISP constituency is also basically part of it. These
groups have worked out a "consensus" among themselves as to what will and will not
happen. The current constituency structure makes this possible. It basically gives
the businesses who believe in subordinating DNS to trademark protection 4 constituencies,
and those who oppose them one or no constituencies. Consider the following case:
AIM, an organization of major European brand holders, is a member of the Business
and commercial constituency. That organization's representative, Phil Shepard, is
on the Names Council. Now obviously, as an organization devoted to brand holders,
AIM is concerned primarily if not exclusively with trademark protection. Likewise,
AT&T, a major lobbying force, is an ISP, a member of B&C, and holder of hundreds
of trademarks. So these groups, who do not represent more people or even more investment
stake in the Internet than, say, the non-commercial constituency, can play around
in three or four constituencies, whereas other points of view are confined to one.
Just do the political arithmetic. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00175.html
If political parties were established like ICANN constitutencies, they
would be pre-formed and given a pre-established number of votes no matter whether
they had two members or two million. Sure, define all the parties or constituencies
you want, but don't give them a pre-counted number of votes, as ICANN does, and let
people who don't believe they fit form their own parties/constituencies. And let
old ones die. There is nothing wrong with a group of people getting together
and saying "we have a platform" and trying to sway others to jump onto the bandwagon.
The difference is that constituencies pre-manufacture a limited set of bandwagons,
hand them out on some basis that is necessarily unfair to those who don't get one,
a forces people to pick one rather than build their own. You can start identifying
today and you'll never reach the end of the enumeration. The constituency structure
creates pigeonholes and forces people into those holes as the price of participation.
We don't need such a Procrustean mechanism if we simply give each person one vote
and let them cast it as they chose. As you suggest, many people will follow leaders.
That's fine - as long as the followers get to pick their leaders rather than have
them forced upon them by some pre-ordained constituency structure. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00139.html
I agree that there is a need for constituencies for both political and
administrative reasons but apart from debating which groups should have a constituency
we should also (IMO) debate are all constituencies equal?? Why should all constituencies
get three seats on Names Council?? This is very arbitrary and one can argue that
some constituencies are far more important than others. There is a strong case IMO
that the ccTLDS should have far more voting strength than 1/7th of the DNSO which
is in turn 1/6th of the Board so is 1/42nd all up - especially as they are asked
to fund 35% of the budget. Now one way around this is having the ccTLDS become a
SO, but one can also look at whether representation on the Names Council should be
3 votes per constituency. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00150.html
This is IMO an important point. A constituency such as the non-commercial
one could wither away to only five small organisations as members yet they still
have the same votes as say the IP Constituency which has 8,672 lawyers as members.
Perhaps we should have two "chambers" - one which is equal votes per constituency
(senate model) like the Names Council) and one which is votes are proportional to
membership/support (house model). One could argue the GA is the equivalent of the
House but this then means that in this analogy you have a House with no powers at
all and a Names Council with all the powers. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00152.html
I have expressed my agreement about the need for fluidity in the constituency
structure of the DNSO. To achieve this, the Board needs to agree on a quick procedure
to approve new DNSO constituencies and to rebalance the NC voting power each time
when a new constituency would be recognized as a real stakeholder constituency. On
the other hand, I do not see it as realistic that existing power blocks dismantle
themselves to accommodate this wish , especially not the united lobby of IP interests.
What I do propose is (and where hopefully some consensus can form), is to make a
start with balancing voting power on the NC. The interests of Name Holders need roughly
to be balanced with those of the registration industry,(ISPs, ccTLDs, TLD registries
and SLD registrars plus the IP interests)--currently 15 votes. The Business constituency
(small and big Biz), the NCDNHC and the Individual DN Holders, could and should have
an equal number of votes. I propose that the current representation of the ISP's,
TLD registries, Registrars and IP lobby together, be reduced to 10 seats. That Three
Name Holder Constituencies (possibly united into a single constituency) be also given
10 seats on the NC. The ccTLD's could be given a separate status,one that would not
tip the registry-industry vs. DN holder balance in the DNSO, but give them instead
a separate representation on the Board, reflecting ICANN's need for their co-operation.
Is this a realistic compromise between completely abandoning the constituency structure
and ending the frustration of always being outvoted due to lack of representation?
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00289.html
The other difficult aspect with this proposal is power-sharing. I am suggesting that
not all constituency groups will sit on the NC at the same time. Instead, once the
NC reaches let's say 42 members (double the size currently), then the NC structure
will change to a type of staggered term basis of power-sharing. I can expand upon
this if it is unclear, but other suggestions are welcome. Rough Proposal B - Section
I. Creation of objective criteria for the recognition and continued existence of
official constituencies (including those already in existence). A constituency exists
to ensure that the DNSO meet its obligation within ICANN to provide consensus-based
policy advice and recommendations. Upon application and a showing of compliance with
the objective criteria, a self-organized group is automatically admitted as a constituency
of the DNSO by the Names Council. - Section II. If the following objective criteria
is used, two additional stakeholders should be recognized immediately upon application
as official constituencies of the DNSO: (1) the individual domain name holders constituency
and (2) a small businesses owners constituency. (a) Objective Criteria: 1. The self-organized
group must express a stated interest and/or expertise in DNSO activities. 2. The
self-organized group must maintain open access by the Names Council to its membership
list. 3. The self-organized group must show that it maintains a membership of a certain
and definite percentage of those who the group states that it represents. 4. The
self-organized group must maintain a web address or some electronic communications
method to recruit members or inform members of DNSO activities. 5. The self-organized
group must actively participate in DNSO activities upon granting constituency status.
- Section III. There should be semi-yearly self-evaluations (subject to Names Council
review) of each official constituency to ensure that the constituency continues to
meet the objective criteria of representation under section II.a. - Section IV. Each
constituency group shall elect three Names Council members until which time the Names
Council membership reaches or exceeds 42 members. At that time, the Names Council
shall establish additional rules allowing for a revolving Term limited membership
on the Names Council. Each constituency shall select its three members when it is
their term period to elect Names Council members. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00303.html
I'm not sure whether you mean by this [1] that there is no way to compute
how much representation each of the relevant stakeholder communities *in fact* has
on the NC, under the current system; or [2] that there is no way to compute how much
representation each of the relevant stakeholder communities *ought to* have on the
NC. My guess is that you don't mean [1], since that's transparently wrong. The various
NC members quite explicitly act as representatives of their constituencies. It's
easy to count how much representation each "stakeholder community" currently has:
three members for a favored six, one for a seventh, zero for the rest. If you mean
[2], I agree. The problem is that absent such an algorithm, the current system is
incoherent. The current system features a Names Council whose members vote, and whose
votes are tallied. It assigns seven stakeholder groups the privilege of selecting
representatives, and assigns the number of representatives for each. It is defensible
only if we believe that six specifically defined groups *ought* to have a particular
quantum of representation, with a different amount (soon to change) for a seventh,
and none at all for anyone else. The fact that there is no way to compute, top-down,
how much representation each of the relevant stakeholder communities ought to have,
suggests that we should take the advice to eliminate altogether the practice of assigning
NC seats to "stakeholder communities." http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00333.html
Arguable the weighting of constituencies (currently all are equal) on
Names Council is inappropriate? How can one decide what is appropriate and who decides?
5. GA feel marginalised and powerless. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00436.html
The problem is that there is no way to assign weights to the stakeholder
groups. Therefore it doesn't make any difference whether you say "DNSO" or "NC" --
the basic problem transcends them both. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00443.html
Those aren't mutually exclusive statements. If those pre-existing issues
aren't resolved structurally, they continue to bite people trying to participate.
Consensus doesn't just happen, you know - creating consensus-based structures takes
more than good will and effort, though it requires huge amounts of both. Creating
a board structure where there are "x" participants lacking a say in board composition
is a surefire way to create dissension. Assigning weights to groups even when you
can't adequately weight the groups just pours oil on the fire. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00466.html
I agree that broad support among all DNSO constituencies is desirable.
And he is right that the NC will ask about it. However, it should also be pointed
out that the argument here is somewhat circular and that games can be played with
the constituency structure. If you create a constituency structure that vastly overweights
certain interests and condenses vast portions of the rest of the world into one or
zero constituencies in the DNSO, of course you can make it appear as if a proposal
that has 300 votes for and 3 votes against doesn't have "enough" support. This is
in fact the whole problem with the current DNOS structure. So to use that structure
to deligitimize expressions of dissatisfaction with the DNSO is, as I said, circular
reasoning. This should be noted in our report. Whenever ICANN has open elections
(such as the @large election) and open processes (such as WGs) based on one-person,
one vote, the results differ incredibly from constituency-based votes. That in itself
is something that the WG report ought to take note of. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00473.html
Point number 2 should be phrased differently. the problem is not that
individual constituencies are "unrepresentative," but that the constiteuncy *structure*
has been gerrymandered to increase representation of some interests and reduce or
eliminate representation of others. There is an overwhelming amount of support and
analysis behind that assertion. So much so, that I'm afraid to start typing it up,
because I have a real job to do today and that isn't it. Let's just see how he responds
to these points about the unreprsentative structure: 1. The IP constituency represents
a particular SUBSET of business/commercial interests, a subset that is based entirely
on a particular policy position(protect IP and forget anything else). But there is
no counterpart on the other side of the policy spectrum, e.g., a civil liberties/free
expression constituency. Since TM rights are BY LAW bounded by free expression rights
and do not in any country's legal system constitute an absolute right, such a structure
is inherently biased in a particular policy direction. 2. ISPs, Registrars, and registries
are all businesses. Why is there a separate B&C constituency? 3. ccTLDs, who are
asked for 40%+ of ICANN's budget, receive 1/7 of the representation on the DNSO,
which in turn receives 1/6 of the Board representation. 4. CcTLDs are registries.
What is the justification for making them a separate constituency? (There may be
strong justifications, but I haven't seen it yet.) 5. Why was the gTLD constituency
restricted to NSI, when there were, prior to ICANN's creation, other prospective
and actual, functioning gTLD operators? Why are there no plans to include new, ICANN-designated
gTLDs in that constituency? Why should gTLDs have to be in the ICANN root to be accepted
in the constituency - shouldn't they, as prospective registries, have a stake in
affecting ICANN policies? I could go on. Sorry, Ken, it's a one-finger exercise to
reduce the rationale behind the DNSO constituency structure to absolute rubble. I
look forward to your response. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00482.html
However, there are too many open issues to make a realistic recommendation
on structure at this point. There are many issues that would have to be considered,
including the effects of the creation of such an entity would have on: 1) the GA
(there is clear overlap -- perhaps the GA should be converted into a general "intake
committee" function, expressly for the purpose of getting proposals the DSNO that
otherwise would not have a home); 2) the BC (in particular w/ respect to very small,
individual businesses); and perhaps 3) the NCC (individuals and consumers are non-commercial
in nature; many of the members of the NCC are there because they believe they represent
consumer interests, not because they have any particular problems with domain names
themselves). http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01487.html
Some have talked about the number of votes each constituency should
have. Others have said that members of those constituencies are also individual domain
holders and should be allowed to be a Member of any Individual Domain Holder's Constituency,
as well, if it is created. I agree, but the Individual Domain Name Holders are just
one group like businesses, ISPs, Registrars, etc., but, the Individual's constituency
isn't limited to just Domain Holders, but to all Internet users, AND it should have
MORE votes than all the other Constituencies combined, therefore having the ONLY
veto to any proposals. Since this Constituency would represent everyone equally,
their opinion should be the determining factor. Since that is not likely to occur,
I only see two options. A. Simply go to a straight one-person, one-vote system. B.
Let those existing Constituencies draft proposals that do NOT go to ICANN for approval,
but go to the public for a vote to get approved. This does not, however, address
the rights of the USERS of the Internet in general. IDNH is for Domain Holders, but
the bigger issue is Individual Users needing representation. When I speak of one-person-one-vote,
I am talking about all USERS, not just Domain Name Owners or Holders. IMO both operate
better on one-person-one-vote though. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00822.html
I still believe that since anyone can be part of the @Large or Individual's
constituency, we should total the votes or number of board members of all the constituencies
and then give the Individuals one more vote than the total, giving the users of the
Internet the overriding opinion on every issue. Simply adding the IDNH in no
way balances the system. We can cancel out the TM vote, but those in the business
constituency, which really run the TM vote as well still have a trump vote over the
IDNH. The deck is already stacked and us getting one extra card isn't going to make
enough of a difference. It is a good start, but if the @Large or the public let's
say, have the final say. The constituencies would simply vote to present a proposal
to the public. We aren't likely to get ANY agreement on this out of the BoD or other
constituencies. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00969.html
I have to say the current situation where Constituencies are able to
place 3 members onto the NC as very bizarre. Given that the NC is supposed to be
the representative body that reports up the chain. It would appear to me there is
very little provision to ensure the positions on the NC are filled by the best qualified
and capable people. No does there appear to be a direct relationship between the
positions and the number of participants they represent. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02631.html
SHOULD
NOT EVEN BE A CONSTITUENCY
I personally believe in a dissolution
of the TM constituency, that it be absorbed within the BC. After all, the lawyers
are hirelings of the Business Constitency and its community. As Kent Crispin keeps
trying to convince us, the BC represents "all" business interests, surely those who
speak for the BC should only be allowed to speak on their Clientele's behalf, and
not on their own. Unless,of course, the NC is meant to be weighted in the interests
of the BC, thereby necessitating a TM trump card on the NC. (how's that for jargon?)
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01234.html
The existance of registrars and registries as having some sort of special interest
is merely a fancy that exists in the mind of one who wants to give those groups special
powers. In reality such businesses are simply that - businesses. No one is saying
that a person - such as a person who has built a registrar - who demonstrates expertise,
and honest expression of that expertise, in an area shouldn't be given a high degree
of credibility. But that hardly justifies the creation of a constituency, i.e. the
granting of privileges without demonstration that those privileges are in accord
with any objectively measurement. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00158.html
Then equally ridiculous for there to be a constituency for TM Holders.
It would not be necessary for IDNH Constituency if SWIPO had not been stretching
TM Law beyond the law itself. There would not be a need if the UDRP was a fair and
impartial Procedure Guideline. There would not be a need to add fairness to the DNSO,
NC, or ICANN if they already had fair practices to begin with. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00859.html
Let's throw this idea out immediately. We don't assign entire constituencies
to individual organizations. If we start doing that, then let's have an ACM constituency,
and IBM constituency, and a Syracuse University constituency (all of which have more
members than ISOC). http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00058.html
THE
FUNDAMENTAL CHOICES
One has proposed a complete dissolution
of the constituency structure. Another has proposed the addition of new constituencies.
This is a nice, simple dichotomy that we could use as a focal point. We might even
be able to come to an agreement about it. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00057.html
I suggest that all of the questions you ask about constituencies are
irrelevant until the fundamental question is asked and answered: Should the DNSO
have a constituency structure? http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00112.html
SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS Although I am not inclined to agree that there
should be unequal constituencies in the DNSO for purposes of getting a seat at the
NC, I think that debate should follow the initial question concerning structure.
It looks like we have at least two proposals: 1) that the "official" constituency
structure be abandoned, and open constituencies replace them; 2) that the current
constituency structure be liberalized to allow any constituency to join the DNSO
based on a list of objective criteria of representation; 2a) if the constituency
structure is liberalized, criteria should be established to determine the appropriate
number of seats on the NC for each constituency. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00167.html
We seem to have to rough proposals on the table regarding constituencies:
- Elimination of formal/official constituencies and replacement of that with a one-person-one-vote
mechanism (my approach) - Creation of objective criteria for the recognition and
continued existance of official constituencies (including those already in existance)
- individuals and small businesses being two examples of constituencies that would
probably quickly arise. My own sense is that continuation of the status quo is a
non-starter. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00188.html
>It looks like we have at least two proposals: None of the positions
are yet detailed enough to qualify as proposals, and it appears there are at least
nine positions, but this is a good jumping off point for discussing this question
>1) that the "official" constituency structure be abandoned, and open >constituencies
replace them; This goes directly to issues of representation in the NC, and therefore
the ICANN board - without a specific mechanism for that representation, or a call
to abandon the concept of the NC (and replacing it with x), it's a position that
might be held by any number of people who actually disagree on implementation. This
needs clarification, it would seem: No votes by constituencies, election by GA -
1 Individual domain name holders get one vote each - 1 Don't know - 1 Letting things
resolve as they may without locked in constituencies/Free Choice - 2 the current
review process should be used to reformulate the constituencies - 1 >2) that the
current constituency structure be liberalized to allow any >constituency to join
the DNSO based on a list of objective criteria of >representation; Liberalized is
perhaps a loaded word, there - I would suggest modified. I'm not sure, in any event,
how the structure can be liberalized, though certainly the process for constituency
creation can be opened up. In addition to this one, the following positions have
been recorded in the informal poll: 3. That the current structure be changed by combining
provider groups. (no support - 0 votes) 4. That the current structure be changed
by combining user groups. (3 votes) 5. That the current structure be changed by a
combination of 3 and 4 (4 votes) These positions could use some clarification, at
least for me, in terms of which specific constituencies might be combined. 6. That
the current structure be changed by adding an individuals' constituency. (motion
made and seconded in the list) 7. That the current structure be changed by adding
a "chartered tld" constituency. (motion made and seconded in the list) 8. That the
current structure be changed by doing both 6 and 7. This is a slight overstatement
- the motions were made to develop sub-working groups to discuss them, but I'm assuming
that the intent is to create them. 9. The current structure should not be changed.
(3 votes) >2a) if the constituency structure is liberalized, criteria >should be
established to determine the appropriate number of seats on the NC >for each constituency.
I believe this is actually a separate question, and applies to several of the positions
above. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00178.html
I think
Greg's point that the poll results show a lack of a clear consensus by this WG that
the constituency structure of the DNSO should be abolished is exactly correct.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01507.html
As members of this Working
Group, some of us have expressed the need to eliminate the Names Council and the
Constituency structure; others have pressed for the establishment of alternate Constituencies
in order to secure representation and add new blood to an organization clearly in
need of a transfusion. What we have in common is a shared sentiment that the current
poorly performing “Management Team” of the DNSO needs to be replaced. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02142.html
PROPOSALS
TO ABOLISH THE CONSTITUENCIES
It is clear to me, now, that
the current constituency system is severely broken, for all definitions of "broken",
and should be done away with. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02376.html
We only have time to speak ONE of these issues. That is the issue of the
continued existance of the constituency model. We have no time to discuss refinements
beyond that point. Given that, the KISS answer is to disband the constituencies and
elect NC members direcly via the GA. We have no time to discuss any other options
(although, there are a few that look promising). http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00275.html
Given the above, would I not be correct, that, if the constituencies
are abolished, without restructuring either the Names Council, or, ICANN in total,
The Names Council would cease to exist (apart from stuffing up the by-laws)? Now,
regarding the General Assembly, which, supposedly, from Greg's response above, could
appoint Names Council members, from clause 1(b), above, the General Assembly exists
in parallel to, and, at the same level as, the Names Council, and, no apparent authority
exists, for the General assembly to appoint members of the Names Council. From my
understanding of the by-laws, a motion to abolish the constituencies, is a motion
to abolish the (apparently non-existent, from the ICANN organisational structure
chart) Names Council. Thus, if my understanding of all of this is correct, the motions
to abolish the constituencies, are in fact, motions to abolish the Names Council,
and, to transfer its role, completely, to the General Assembly http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01606.html
Poll results on the question "Abandoning the constituency structure
altogether" were as follows: Total number of voters: 25; Against 8 32% ; For 16 64%
; No Opinion 1 4%. Due to these results, it appears to me that discussion might focus
first on the question "If constituencies are to be abandoned altogether, what should
replace them?" http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02148.html
I was just over at the NCDNHC list and guiess what? DNRC, a non-profit,
just got rejected, because they also support commercial interests.Like MHSC, but
for different reason, they don't fit in any other constituency either. Ergo, they
are disenfranchised. I can't think of a stronger argument for the abolishment
of the constituency model. If we can't include everyone that controls a domain name,
it shouldn't exist. A DNSO that doesn't enfranchise ALL domain name holders, is NOT
a DNSO! http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02554.html
We ought to dispense the concept of "stakeholders" and its derivative,
the constituency structure. This was discussed extensively on the list. I do not
think a consensus was achieved, but there was certainly widespread feeling that the
current constituency structure was part of the problem. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01524.html
Remember, the clear majority in the WG voted *against* constituencies
allltogether, any other comments are *subsidiary* and should be treated as such.
If he wishes to submit his suggestion as an indicidual, that's his prerogative, but
the WG should not endorse it. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02373.html
If you favour the abolition of all constituencies, then obviously IDNH
ers will be part of a new democratic structure that elects NC representatives. Or
is there a misunderstanding about that too? http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01408.html
If the consensus of the WG is that the constituency structure is pernicious,
we should say so. (Myself, I tend to agree that it is.) Moreover, we should suggest
an alternative to the constituency structure that would be superior. (That's the
harder part.) By all means, our report should set out alternative recommendations
as well -- i.e., "if the readers of this report are unwilling to go so far as to
enact the sweeping change we have recommended, here is a set of less sweeping changes
that constitute a second-best solution." But taking the fundamental issues off the
table, and out of our report, won't do anything to strengthen the impact of that
second set of recommendations. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00199.html
Do I have to resubmit all the arguments against constituencies, under
the correct headers? http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01427.html
We need to seriously look at the prime engineering doctrine of KISS!
If we KISS the constituencies, they dry up and blow away, as being much to complex
for what they are supposed to do. They divide efforts, resources, and focus, in an
initial group that is too small to tolerate that. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01802.html
A better, more inclusive, approach to the constituency model is to let
the GA vote for ALL NC seats. No kowtowing to special interests here (TM or otherwise).
Let blocks of voters form PACs, but each individual votes independently. For the
DNSO, a voting member is one that has color of title to, at least one, domain name.
Additional domain names do not garner any extra voting rights, however. Legally recognized
corporate entities can vote along with anyone else. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01554.html
The obvious model for the DNSO is what he proposed. The GA to include
everyone feeeling concerned and housing SIGs, Centers Of Interest, WGs...created/uncreated
at will, with their own charters to address particular needs or group of needs. Their
real interest and value is their capacity to share into the study, decision preparation,
etc... to serve the BoD and for the Internet community. In such a scheme the NC is
just a common secretariat and a polling committee. The GA elects its Chair and the
BoD. The question here is qualification, not policy. So the real issue is the nomination
of the candidates (hey have to be qualified): it is up to the GA groups (approved
as nominators by the GA) to qualify them and to the GA to elect them. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02644.html
Again, that loaded word "stakeholders" - we ought not to pre-judge who
has a "stake" but rather let people decide for themselves whether they feel that
they have an interest they want to protect. Rather than forcing people into pre-conceived,
and arbitrary "constituencies" we ought to allow people to aggregate (and de-aggregate)
into fluid coalitions. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00036.html
As for constituencies - I have not seen a compelling justification to
retain pre-defined "constituencies" with pre-allocated voting powers. The closest
thing to a justification that I have seen is the argument that there are many who
do not pariticpate and who need someone to act as their proxy voice. I don't mind
that structure as long as the proxy voice is just that, a voice, and that the actual
votes still come from individual people (even corporations need to manifest their
actions through the acts of people.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00727.html
Getting rid of rotten burough "constituencies" that give voting rights,
often multiple voting rights, to special groups is not drastic. Creating structures
that allow people to form coalitions with those they believe have a common point
of view on an issue is not drastic. Having procedures through which all who are interested
may have rational organized discussions is not drastic. Allowing any member to call
for a counted vote whenever that memeber disagrees with the chair's assessment is
not drastic. Retention of the status quo - that is drastic. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00782.html
Getting rid of them now, folding all the power into the GA, and assigning
working groups to do that job the way it ought to be done, is more sensible and practicable,
IMHO. Then, when we have the membership that warrants such scalibility, we will be
ready with a better defined idea of how constituencies work or should work. Shucks,
we may even have consensus on them, by then. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02376.html
Actually, I'd say that there was more widespread support for the dissolution
of the constitency structure. In fact it appears to be a majority, check it out:
http://pollcat.com/Lite/report.asp?report=report/tzk27voon5_a http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01436.html
I have the utmost respect for his professional positions which I happen
to share, and I must note that: 1. this WG-Review has overwhelmingly shown his distrust
in the constituency system http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01505.html
Should sound more like: In your opinion, should the *current* constituency
structure of the DNSO be abandoned altogether? http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01534.html
I share the view of some that ICANN made a critical mistake in allowing
for the representation of interest groups by way of the establishment of the Domain
Name Supporting Organization constituencies, and within this context feel an obligation
to articulate my dissenting point of view relative to that which now appears to be
the Review Working Group’s polled consensus position regarding the establishment
of an Independent Domain Name Holders Constituency; it is my position that these
formal constituencies should be decommissioned and folded into the General Assembly
membership, thereby allowing for the consequent bottoms-up formation of alliances
that would, of necessity, fluidly coalesce and shift with the emergence of new issues
that call for consensus-based policy directives. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01342.html
For one thing, we can start by re-enfranchising those that ICANN/DNSO
dis-enfranchised in the first place. Delete the primary tool for dis-enfranchisement
... the constituencies, and re-integrate those blocks back into the DNSO/GA. Then
you can, ever so politely, invite the inclusive root server operators back into the
fold, rather than snubing them. Make this an inclusive club, in fact, rather than
fiction. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01296.html
It is clear that we can neither agree on specific constituencies or
that anyone has a clue on the process needed to create a constituency. Simply creating
them by executive fiat, as the current constituencies are, is generally unacceptable
and has not, in fact, been accepted. This includes all the wrangeling over Independent
Domain Name Holders. There seems to be good agreement, in WG-Review, that the constituency model
is not working. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01554.html
Fine, let's get rid of the entire existing constituency system. I don't
have a problem with that either. It's pretty clear that the current BC and TM C's
are in cahoots... and who knows who else? http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01329.html
But, I don't see much effort on figuring out, how to figure out, which
new ones to add. Also, no matter which ones we add, someone will ALWAYS be left out.
You can just about bank it. There are two ways to approach such a problem;
1) Create a catch-all constituancy (which may just be the GA), or 2) dump them
all. Now ask yourself; which one's less work? Which has a higher
likelyhood of success, in the near term? what damages are accrued by the status
quo? which is more difficult to subvert? http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02567.html
And I do dislike the implicit grouping of people into "constituencies"
on the basis of broad perceptions by third parties of some common interest - we all
know that there are subtle differences of opinion that often put groups of people
who would otherwise seem to have common ground into opposition to one another. We
ought to build mechanisms that permit fluid formation - and disintegration - of coalitions.
The only way I see to do that is to have a "one person, one vote" system - that way
people can join together as they see fit. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00043.html
I have personally presented, repeatedly, over the past weeks, substantial
argument for something that could credibly replace the current system. That argument
was NOT created in a vacume. I have also received private and public support for
the individual concepts, which recently were integrated into the MHSC comments and
summary opinion, presented early this morning (shortly after mid-night. The proposal
I put forth, makes the GA truely the primary assembly of the DNSO, with the NC directly
answerable to it. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01585.html
I still see some with the mistaken hope that the constituency system
can be repaired. IMHO, it can't. However, they are so intricatly woven throughout
the current DNSO structure that the only way to eliminate them is to re-wire the
DNSO. I have submitted documents that can begin to do that. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01237.html
It is clear that we can neither agree on specific constituencies or
that anyone has a clue on the process needed to create a constituency. Simply creating
them by executive fiat, as the current constituencies are, is generally unacceptable.
This includes all the wrangeling over Independent Domain Holders. A better, more
inclusive approach is to let the GA vote for ALL NC seats. No kowtowing to special
interests here (TM or otherwise). Let blocks of voters form PACs, but each individual
votes independently. For the DNSO, a voting member is one that has color of title
to, at least one, domain name. Additional domain names do not garner any extra voting
rights, however. Legally recognized corporate entities can vote along with anyone
else. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01158.html
And if, as some suggest, the existing infrastructure is beyond any redemption, then
we must be considering such angles AND INDIVIDUALS MUST GET ORGANIZED). http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01329.html
Perhaps we are using the same words in different ways? I don't mind
"constituencies" as long as they are declared by their own members, have no official
standing, and have no voice except as reflected by the combined voices of those who
chose to support its position. My objection is to "official" constituencies - that
represent some third party's dictat as to who shall be lumped with whom on what issues
and with what degree of voting power. Thus we ought to allow each person to
decide for himself/herself how to best proceed and with whom to join forces, if anyone.
If people chose to join together, who are we to say no? If people chose not to join
togeher, again, who are we to say no? http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00117.html
Earlier statements of threshold questions can be summarized by this
one. The ultimate threshold question wrt constitiencies. .... keep them or lose them?
For all of the reasons that were touched upon in this thread, I think that constituencies
are a appendage that the DNSO is not yet mature enough to grow. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00276.html
The first solution for having people like you, me and common people
talking together is to drop the artificial mechanic of the NC and its seats, limited
representation etc.... 1. one GA open to all who want to share and may survive the
individuals in here. 2. ad hoc working groups proposed by centers of interests, associations
structures, club, whatever you want 3. concertation at WG Chair level (one WG one
vote) to check that the proposed documents are professional and non conflicting.
4. nomination and election to the BoD by the GA after nomination approval by the
Chair Concilium (to avoid internal disputes and permit NICs to get one out 3 sites
as it should be the case in the ASO and PSO, due to special duties and responsibilities).
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00519.html
b) DNSO Needs Reformation. NC should pay attention to the poll result done by Review
WG that 97 % people responded YES. [Appendix 2] Some including one of At-Large Board
Director, recommend to eliminate "Constituency" structure itself, which has
not been working out in the DNSO.[Appendix 3] http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01332.html
Drop constituencies altogether. Then, let the people speak, and,
importantly, be heard, and, let their will be recognised. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01325.html
Artificial constituencies are too prone to special interest capture.
The real ballet here is how to balance constituency creation, appropriate representation
and special interests. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00208.html
Should DNSO constituencies be retained or abolished altogether?" The
following results are based on the participation of the total of 25 respondents of
the poll: Abolished: 16 Votes = 64.00% Retained: 3 Votes = 12.00% Don't Know: 3 Votes
= 12.00% Other: 3 Votes = 12.00% http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01467.html
As long as there is an NC, we will need to keep looking at the distribution
of power.......to my mind, a compelling argument for eliminating it IF we truly believe
a consensus process is the most desirable approach. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00395.html
The constituency structure is a failure and should be abandoned.
Using the word in another sense, if administrators "represent" their users and companies
"represent" their clients, then it is entirely possible an open-to-all-comers mailing
list is the best anyone can do toward achieving appropriate representation.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00552.html
I understand, from what has been said, that the existence of the constituencies is
a necessary evil; that, without the constituencies, no advocacy to the Names Council
would exist; that the Names Council members are appointed, without the constituencies,
and, that removing the constituencies, would ensure that an appointed board would
be what constituted the Names Council, with no-one being represented, other than
the body that appointed the NC board. So, can I please have this all clarified, by
someone on this list, who knows; the current structure, and, the effect of exterminating
the constituencies? http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01538.html
I am not sure what the purpose a Names Council will serve in the absence
of constituencies. If you vote to support abolition of the constituencies, it seems
to me that the NC must go too; otherwise, you have a structure that is worse, not
better, than the status quo. It seems a bit silly to vote to get rid of a structure
without careful thinking about what should replace it. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01583.html
Is it a workable solution to have the constituencies operate outside
of ICANN as PACs and then just have a general assembly one person one vote. Then
only committees which make recomendations which the board puts up for vote. You could
even have registration of the PACs. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01610.html
Abandoning the constituency structure altogether Total number of voters:
25; Against 8 32%; For 16 64% No Opinion 1 4%. Comments: · Let's be realistic about
what this WG can achieve · The current set is bad. The concept probably so. But there
may be worse alternatives, so we need to see the next step before we throw out the
current structure. · They should be a part of the structure, I would like to see
additional layers above them however. · Possibly, yes. Constituencies resemble to
political parties in Italy. They intercept and use the vote of the people to rule
the power on their own. For this reason either we should first get a dedicated constituency
and then try to change the system. · I have asked for clarification of this, on the
mailing list, and, no response has been forthcoming. I am unable to make an informed
vote. · I would like to see IDNH/IDNO as a primary or base constituency, upon which
all other secondary constituencies are co-dependent. · One domain, one vote? · I
assume that "for" means that I'm voting "yes" to abandon constituencies. · BECAUSE
THE EXISTING ICANN BoDs HAVE SHOWN THE EASE IN WHICH THEY CAN ABUSE IT. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01763.html
The Draft DNSO Review Report 2.0 presents the following synopsis regarding
constituencies, “Review discussions highlighted two areas relevant to the constituencies.
First, representations and procedures within a constituency; second, overlap of constituencies
and whether all stakeholders are represented with the current numbers of constituencies.”
I seem to recall a fair amount of comment regarding the desire to abolish the constituency
structure. Can anyone explain why that portion of the discussions was not referenced
in this synopsis? http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02168.html
>RTF Report: "Discussions within the General Assembly, the
Working Group, and other forums on the question of a constituency for individual
domain name holders reflect that while not all agree with the need for it, there
is sufficient support to explore its establishment. "snip I pause here to point out
something interesting. Although the majority of the WG was against the CONSTITUENCY
structure, Ms/Mrs.(?) T. Swineheart writes that there is "sufficient support to explore"
the establishment of an IDNH/O. There is an explicit association between this judgement
of "sufficient support" and the WG, after all, they're being used in the same sentence
in support of a predication. Let me continue with the *same* paragraph. snip "...If
the constituency is added, a procedure is needed to ensure that it occurs in a transparent
manner, is representative of its charter, and that the role of the General Assembly,
Non-Commercial Constituency, and the At Large members is looked at in relation to
the individual constituency. This next statement in the paragraph is dependent upon
the preceding predication in the final clause of the last sentence (i.e. that the
WG "sufficiently" supports the establishment of an IDNH, even though the WG is mostly
against CONSTITUENCIES). The final thought in this sentence is: "and the At Large
members is looked at in relation to the individual constituency." still the same
thoughts carried through falsified implicature to make a further statement that is
wholly without basis IN ANY REALITY. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02242.html
Desegregating the groups and combining them all into a single voting
block (assembly) with the same, or increasing, amount of voting rights as far as
members elected. The concept being that any good idea from any group within the assembly
would be adopted by the assembly as a whole and given its' due weight. The membership
here would not be important as it would be the issues presented that would create
participation. Someone with no stake at all in an issue would presumably not vote
on such a subject. Further the elected officials would be responsible to the group
as a whole and would remain at the popular determination of the assembly. By popular
demand issues could be placed upon the agenda and decisions would be transparent.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02247.html
In my submission, I advocated against having formal constituencies.; 1) We
don't really know what they are 2) How to build them 3) How to authorize
them 3) How to organize them 4) How to apportion their politcal weight.
While the submission has some merit (I'm still going over it, it's a lotta work).
It still assumes a need for heirarchical structure. Yes, it scales. However, due
to it's size, getting consensus on it is problematic. Especially within the time-frame.
We simply haven't the time to get the buy-in. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02376.html
Actually, this idea was a part of the original DNSO proposal. It was
a melange of floating constituencies that self-created and destructed, in a rather
fluid manner. This was rejected by the BoD, in favor of the Constituencies-on-ice
that we have now. The former is non-deterministic and the latter is almost fully
deterministic. Deterministic systems are easier to control. Regardless of relative
merit (and I think the idea has merit), it wont fly past the BoD (except maybe Karl,
who originally suggested it). At the end of the day, we're probably not going to
get it. Given that, I think that one of the two option I laid out, is more
practicable. I never believed in the worthiness of half-steps. So, we either have
full-on floating constituencies, or none at all, IMHO. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02570.html
THE
WORRY THAT THE PROPOSAL TO ABOLISH WILL BE DISREGARDED
Any
significant change to the constituency structure will reopen a set of issues that
I guarantee will either deadlock this WG for months, or doom it to total irrelevance.
Moreover, even if we reopened all those issues, the final result would be, I wager,
not much different from the current one -- the current constituencies (except the
NCC) are all here because their members fought very hard to be here, and they are
not going to suddenly change their minds. The TM interests have not suddenly become
powerless; the registrars and registries have not become any less important in the
ICANN structure; business still register the vast majority of domain names. None
of the basic dynamics that led to the current structure have changed all that much.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00047.html
Those
of us who have been involved from the early stages are very well aware of the possibility
of nullification, of our work. Those of us, whom have read the archives, know that
this has happened in the past, frequently. Many of us also know that parts of history
is not as it appears. However, we are still here, while others have opted out of
the process altogether. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02133.html
Anyone who participated in WG-B or WG-C knows that what the NC wants
to hear it will use, and what the NC doesn't want to hear, it won't. It's *all* flimflam,
the only options being (a) participate, so no one can claim you didn't try to influence
the process, and (b) don't participate, so no one can claim that there was broad-based
participation and all points were considered. Damned if you do and damned if you
don't. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00467.html
Which ccTLDs? Interested in what, a recommended revision of the constituency
structure, or a recommendation from this WG that the constituencies be abandoned,
both of which will end up in the trash? The ccTLD regsitries have more on their plate
than that; their economic existence is under threat, exhorbitant fees are being demanded
of them and at the same time that their right to continue operating their registry
is at risk by the GAC, so that they are afraid to say "no dough". Do you imagine
that they care whether there are a couple of new constituencies or not? Use your
head. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01495.html
More discussion on an NC without constituencies (is it politically realistic?) is
needed. An NC without constituencies is possible, but it should then be larger, so
that it can accommodate natural alliances and factions arising from an election from
among the members of the GA. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01597.html
The second poll seems to me to show that (more or less) the same people
who would vote to abolish the DNSO constituencies given the choice, would equally
vote to have one for individuals if the other objective were not possible. I believe
even the proponent for abolition supports this position. Would you really want to
block any representation whatsoever for individuals until the objective of dismantling
the DNSO had been achieved, even if that were to take more than 2 years (giving time
for the 'Large study had been completed etc.)? http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01454.html
As I see it, we should scrap the constituency structure. However, if
we're stuck with such a structure, then we should add constituencies to improve the
balance. At a minimum, constituencies for: end users, who after all are the
final customer domain holders, if for no other reason than that they pay the bills
consumer groups, to counterbalance the heavy business interests http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01524.html
For example, it is more likely that ISP/CP, BIZ, REG, IP, and GTLD will
form a voting block as a group. Thats 13 votes out of 18. This was apparent at the
last NC board election. It is unlikely, under the present circumstances, that, say,
a NCC delegate would be elected to the board. Or a ccTLD for that matter (speaking
from personal experience). Since it is unlikely that a suggestion from this WG to
completely restructure the constituency system, perhaps the addition of two more
constituencies at this time could create a more viable structure for open voting,
and more diversity of coalition-building. One I would recommend is Individual Domain
Name Holders. Perhaps the other _might_ be the ISOC. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00052.html
Regardless of ICANN's rhetoric and call for representatives, it does
not appear that ICANN wants any other representatives other than those few players
already positioned within itself. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02092.html
Individuals do not have constituency status, and a detached observer
might be forgiven for concluding that it is unlikely that the Names Council and the
Board will grant them that status. Energy expended on participation at this juncture,
therefore, is likely to be in vain. By contrast, if such a constituency were in fact
created, with the ability to elect and instruct Names Council representatives, I
would expect participation to be much more extensive and more broadly based.
At some level, to demand assurances that an individuals' constituency will "represent
that vast interests of individuals" may place on this proposed constituency a burden
not imposed on the others. It is hardly clear, for example, that the Business and
Commercial constituency represents "the vast interests of businesses," as opposed
to the interests of the particular businesses who are most active in that constituency's
affairs. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00055.html
Our WG function should not be constrained by rules or by-laws. It's
up to us to make recommencations, whatever they are. If we end up recommending one
or more additional constituencies, so be it. Assuming we do so, and assuming that
some group wants to come forward to form (self-organize) that constituency, then
it would follow that whatever applications, changes in by-laws, etc that needed to
happen, would happen. My point is, let's not limit our thinking. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00111.html
I do agree that it is totally unnecessary to think about any work here
before deciding about Constituencies and therefore about NC. I agree that it is totally
necessary to think about any work here if we do not have a "clean sheet" point of
view as the @large Study Group is supposed to have (which means they may request
DNSO changes). 5.1. every one competent in Domain Name may join the GA 5.2. we identify
centers of interests which may self-organize in Chapters, Associations, Cooperations,
Constituencies ... as they think advisable 5.3. these centers of interests
unite at Chair or Rep level (keeping advantage of the past fightings) into the Name
Council (NC). 5.4. New Centers of Interest may join the NC if accepted by the NC.
5.5. a DNSO advisory committee may help working relations between constituencies
and may include guest groups (NC candidates or not) 5.6. the NC elects its representatives
to the BoD. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00132.html
Please note that the purpose of this WG is to identify ways to make the DNSO more
productive. That purpose is not at all served by trying to change the fundamental
structure of the DNSO. Instead, such attempts are certain to be disruptive in the
extreme, and to totally paralyze the DNSO. Indeed, I'm beginning to wonder if this
is not the hidden intent of this WG. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00177.html
STATUS
OF THE NC IF THE CONSTITUENCIES ARE ABOLISHED
In favour of
redistribution of NC seats? Total number of voters: 22; NO 2 9.0909%; Other (please
specify) 1 4.5455%; YES 19 86.3636% Comments: · "in order to evenly balance.." is
wrong. "in order to make better decisions" is the right goal. · I would like to see
a restructuring of this constituency model to a more layered approach. · one GA accepted
yearly confirme SIG one Member · I have requested, on the mailing list, clarification
of the relationship between the constituencies and the Names Council, and none has
been forthcoming. I am unable to make an informed vote. · If we retain the C structure,
then OUT with the TM gang (for one), and pin a bill for time *served* on their lapels!
· Finding an algorithm to do this redistribution will be hard. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01761.html
The difference between a constituency and a center of interest is that
the CI is open to all concerned by the discussed topic. It is less formal and can
be far more productive (or less because less structured and therefore depening more
on its Chair, but with her we have a good pusher !). At the end of the day the NC
should be revised to be the conference of the Chairs of Constituencies and CIes (one
pole of concern/one vote). proably the Chair of the GA should then also be the Chair
of that NC: may be on a rotational basis. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00985.html
It seems to me we have three separate issues: 1. If constituencies are
the electors for the NC - which they currently are - the creation of specific constituencies,
like the proposed IDNH 2. If constituencies are the electors for the NC, how should
constituencies be created? 3. Whether or not constituencies should continue as the
electors for the NC http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01431.html
The NC elects members to the BoD. The NC is elected by the constituencies.
I'd be very interested in who is claiming that the NC would be automatically be "appointed"
if the constituencies don't elect them. It would be quite possible for the General
Assembly to elect the NC members as well. The bylaws certainly don't include any
statement that the NC will be appointed if constituencies no longer vote for them.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01584.html
Abolishing the NC would make the DNSO unworkable. An NC is needed to formulate policy
for approval by the ICANN Board. The Board cannot do this without input from the
stateholders. What could perhaps be a realistic and stable solution is to create
a bi-cameral NC. An "upper Chamber" , consisting of constituency (including an IDNHC)
representatives and a "lower Chamber" elected directly by the GA. Policy formulations
would then have to pass both Chambers. Less opportunity for railroading too.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01618.html
A bi-cameral system, as proposed, would serve only the interests that control the
upper chamber, thus making the lower chamber redundant. The constituencies could
reject everything put up by the lower chmaber, and, thus, the general assembly would
have no say whatsoever. Thus, I object to the proposed bi-cameral system
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01621.html
This is the reason why it was decided to abolish the House of Lords in the United
Kingdom, although I have to say that on occasion they have brought common sense to
the The House of Commons by throwing Bills back to them for review . http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01625.html
The US has a bi-cameral system, the House of Representitives and the
Senate. It works, albeit slowly. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01631.html
The House of Lords abolition never got through - it was thrown out by
- - guess who? http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01644.html
The concept of a bi-cameral NC appears reasonable. One group with clear
agendas and another with wide base individual voting. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01711.html
Election of NC members independent of the constituency structure Total
number of voters: 20 NO 4 20% No opinion 2 10% YES 14 70% Comments: · Partly · I
would like to see more constituencies with representatives in a higher level from
which the NC candidates are chosen. So, it is a layered approach. · first an dsecond
nomination should however be reserved to the SIG, IC, etc... accepted/yearly confirmed
bythe GA · I have sought clarification of the relationship between the constituencies
and the Names Council, on the mailing list, and, none has been forthcoming. I am
unable to make an informed vote. · Unless base (IDNH/IDNO) constituency is established
first. · But ONLY if this means that candidates who were nominated, from within any
constituency (or without) were still ELECTED by a MAJORITY in the GA (i.e. that their
names would go on a GA vote ballot, open to all. (or no "consensus" from me!)
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01762.html
SPECIAL PLACE AT
TABLE
That question has already been asked and answered through
a very long and ardous process, and the answer is before us: we have constituencies,
and we have them for very good reasons. It is obvious that there are in fact groups
(such as the ccTLDs and the registrars) that are in a unique relationships with ICANN,
relationships that are not fairly or adequately addressed by a "one person, one vote"
rule. The exact nature of these unique relationships is debatable, but that they
exist is not. These groups demand, and in fact deserve, a special place at the table.
The current constituencies are there because there were people who made the case
for their existence. They are ad hoc, but that only reflects an underlying reality:
the parties that have an interest in domain name policy come in ad hoc groupings.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00145.html
NO SPECIAL PLACE
On another board I participate on this is an example of domain holders
concern and a reason for their lack of trust in the Registrars and in the relationship
between the registrars and ICANN. So when some say a group represented by companies
who act in this fashion should have a "special place" or be given credibility, I
have to wonder whether or not that person has their own agenda or relationship with
the groups in question. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00162.html
IMPACT
ON THE GA
If changes are made in the constituency structures,
should the GA continue to exist? If an individuals' constituency is created, should
the GA continue to exist? http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00110.html
This is a rough proposal that takes a different, albeit radical, approach
to the issue. I believe that this addresses many of the issues and questions brought
by the Board, recognizes the value of "constituencies", and provides mechanisms for
improving both the DNSO functions and output. A. Proposal Structure and Process 1.
GA to elect ICANN board members directly 1 person, 1 vote all elected at once runoff
election to 6 nominees top 3 elected 2. Formal Constituencies Continue to Exist a.
rationale 1. natural communities of interest 2. recognition of a specific stake 3.
encourage diversity of processes and views b. proposed role 1. Provide discussion
forum for constituency-specific concerns 2. Develop constituency position papers
for ublication to the Board, the GA, and Working Groups 3. Participate in the creation
of working groups 4. Do outreach to currently non-involved parties who might have
a stake c. creation and ongoing support 1. Criteria for recognition a. description
of constituency b. threshold # of GA members who wish to form it c. immediate financial
contribution of constituency (minimal = cost of setting up list, web site, forums,
and polls; and hosting for a year) 2. Process of implementation 3. Support requirements
3. GA to elect a chair and small exec committee a. role of chair b. role of executive
committee 4. Working Groups provide the SO-wide research and consensus development
process on substantive issues. a. creation 1. board request 2. executive committee
request 3. constituencies request - 3 or more? 4. GA request - threshold of 25 members
requesting it? b. process 5. Financing and Resources a. secretariat b. funding c.
required resources B. Questions and friction areas addressed by the proposal Proper
definition of GA function and role facilitation of GA member participation in the
GA facilitation of Constituency member participation in the GA facilitation of goals
for constituencies facilitation of consensus-building goals inclusive representation
facilitation of outreach goals http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00341.html
REASONS
TO KEEP THE CONSTITUENCY STRUCTURE
A formal constituency structure,
while liable to the problems you have pointed out in the discussions regarding the
word "stakeholders", also does at least give a recognized minority some voice. (Of
course, the perhaps majority of the GA, personal/individual/small business domain
holders, have no voice at all under the current situation.) However.....I think
I could go for something that kept the constituency structure and made it more fluid
(ie, easier for a constituency to disband or be created), allocated 1 NC seat per
constituency, and allowed the remainder of the NC to be elected by the DNSO.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00045.html
Rough
Proposal C - Eliminate the names council and keep the concept of "official" constituencies.
This is a rough proposal that takes a different, albeit radical, approach to the
issue. I believe that this addresses many of the issues and questions brought by
the Board, recognizes the value of "constituencies", and provides mechanisms for
improving both the DNSO functions and output. A. Proposal Structure and Process 1.
GA to elect ICANN board members directly 1 person, 1 vote all elected at once runoff
election to 6 nominees top 3 elected 2. Formal Constituencies Continue to Exist a.
rationale 1. natural communities of interest 2. recognition of a specific stake 3.
encourage diversity of processes and views b. proposed role 1. Provide discussion
forum for constituency-specific concerns 2. Develop constituency position papers
for publication to the Board, the GA, and Working Groups 3. Participate in the creation
of working groups 4. Do outreach to currently non-involved parties who might have
a stake c. creation and ongoing support 1. Criteria for recognition a. description
of constituency b. threshold # of GA members who wish to form it c. immediate financial
contribution of constituency (minimal = cost of setting up list, web site, forums,
and polls; and hosting for a year) 2. Process of implementation 3. Support requirements
3. GA to elect a chair and small exec committee a. role of chair b. role of executive
committee 4. Working Groups provide the SO-wide research and consensus development
process on substantive issues. a. creation 1. board request 2. executive committee
request 3. constituencies request - 3 or more? 4. GA request - threshold of 25 members
requesting it? b. process 5. Financing and Resources a. secretariat b. funding c.
required resources B. Questions and friction areas addressed by the proposal Proper
definition of GA function and role facilitation of GA member participation in the
GA facilitation of Constituency member participation in the GA facilitation of goals
for constituencies facilitation of consensus-building goals inclusive representation
facilitation of outreach goals http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00295.html
I believe the DNSO should have a constituency structure. The formation
of Internet Policy is inevitable, even if only to express that the policy should
be "mostly hands-off". The constituency structure should create a series of checks
and balances in the development of that policy. For example, the balance between
free speech and intellectual property. I agree though, that we have not achieved
the appropriate level of balance or representation yet. Perhaps if we could identify
the factions than are NOT represented now, we could make some progress. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00115.html
It's the status quo we're dissatisfied with. Clearly, some form of constituency
system will be required. Just not the current one. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01531.html
One alternative I would favor, however, is that we keep the DNSO structure
except to permit self-organizing constituencies to be recognized within the DNSO
without the gatekeeping "approval" role that the board maintained in reviewing the
existing constituencies. Instead, the board could set a couple of objective criteria
to ensure that the constituency is representative of some interest, then let the
democratic process work itself. Why should so few groups have direct authority to
recommend policy to the board anyway? http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00122.html
I put this one on the table at this point for two reasons. The first
reason is because I think there is value in recognizing formal constituencies/communities
of interest. Formal constituencies can provide the framework for determining if all
interests have been considered in policy decisions. The problems I see with the way
they have been implemented are two-fold. A - The current system of creation/recognition
is actually top-down, in that any new constituency must be approved by the board,
and B - tying constituencies to NC votes means that every change in the constituency
structure will require a change in the NC structure, with concomitant struggles over
questions of power gain and loss. The second reason is structural. Most of the arguments
over constituencies actually have to do with how the NC and BoD members are selected,
and don't appear to me to actually be concerned with any of the other, valuable,
contributions that formal constituencies can make to the overall functionality of
the DNSO. Currently the NC "pie" is cut into pieces by the constituency structure,
and most of the arguments and frictions are about how the pie is divided. The question
I'm raising is "is the pie necessary at all?" Unless there is a compelling reason
for the NC to exist (functions that cannot be performed in other ways), dissolving
the NC would redirect focus within the DNSO from arguing over the pie to arguing
positions on substantive issues. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00391.html
I argue for retention of constituencies. The model of many city - state/provincal
- county - national governments is elected representatives, who represent the (majority)
will of their constituents. In legislative fora, the senators/representatives/whatever
propose policy and laws based on what their supporting constituents want. Many individuals,
the vox populi so to speak, are unwilling or incapable of expressing their ideas
in public fora. They will, however, express them to their elected representatives
in more private circumstances. These mailing lists are dominated by a few people
who have the time, the interest, the inclination, and the energy to participate.
They (the lists) certainly do not and can not represent a sufficiently broad cross-section
of the global Internet community. The constituency system is a viable mechanism for
carrying the voices of a large segment of the population who share common interests
into a forum where useful work can be done- work such as achieving compromise between
diverse special interest groups. I favor the retention of the constituency system,
with the proviso that we work to make sure we have enough constituencies to achieve
fair and equitable representation of the special interests that exist, now and in
the future. I further support the idea that the "output" from the DNSO should be
substantive policy guidelines, with sufficient detail, on each issue presented to
the ICANN board. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00544.html
I don't support complete overturn of the constituency model, but I am
open to dialogue about new constituencies if they indeed are able to demonstrate
that they can provide an organized and coherent input. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02593.html
METHODOLOGY
TO CREATE CONSTITUENCIES
As a consequence, the creation of
constituencies is a creature of the Bylaws, and not something that the DNSO, on its
own, can change. You'll see that under Article VI-B, Section 3(a), constituencies
are created by a majority vote of the Board of Directors: http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI-B
It's also my belief, and I understand that many on the NC share it, that petitions
for new constituencies can be made directly to the Board and do not need to go through
the Names Council. (I seem to recall Ken Stubbs making this statement in a General
Assembly discussion.) Importantly, the Bylaws now provide: "Each Constituency shall
self-organize, and shall determine its own criteria for participation...." Under
the current Bylaw structure, a recommendation from this WG that new constituencies
be created would not be sufficient to actually create them -- the recommendation
would have to be accompanied by a petition from one or more self-organized groups,
complete with founding members and charters for participation. If there's a better
way to create new constituencies, I would certainly expect the Board to look favorably
on consensus recommendations from the DNSO about changes to Article VI-B of the ICANN
Bylaws (the section devoted to the DNSO). But the language in the ICANN Bylaws is
the current method. By the way, I think it would be worth everyone's time to take
a quick read of Article VI-B (linked above) to understand what's "hard-wired" into
the Bylaws and what's susceptible of change by the NC alone. These distinctions will
likely affect the specifics of this WG's report and recommendation. (In other words,
some recommendations will require implementation by the Board and some will require
implementation by the Names Council.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00068.html
There have been some cases whether or not such petetion can go to the
Board directly without NC consulation. If so, what could be a procedure such as through
ICANN staff or literally directly, which should be clarified to give guidance to
those who want to go to the Board directly. It would be of help to draw more
specific line as much as possible in WG report to avoid any potential confusion among
what NC/Board is recommended to do or NC/Board can do and what NC/Board should do
and what NC/Board should not do in accomplishing their own tasks. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00075.html
As for what the procedure is, the Bylaws only state: Any group of individuals
or entities may petition the Board for recognition as a new or separate Constituency.
Any such petition will be posted for public comment pursuant to Article III, Section
3. The Board may create new Constituencies in response to such a petition, or on
its own motion, if it determines that such action would serve the purposes of the
Corporation. There is no single model for what a constituency petition might look
like. For examples, constituency proponents would want to view the original constituency
proposals (both the successful and the unsuccessful ones) that were considered by
the Board in Berlin and Santiago, http://www.icann.org/dnso/constituency_groups.html
http://www.icann.org/dnso/noncommpage.htm together with the Board's resolution approving
the constituencies http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-27may99.htm http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-26aug99.htm
As to where a new constituency petition should be directed, I'm not aware of any
statement of preference from the Board and staff as to how to bring such matters
to ICANN's attention. If it were me, I'd send the petition to the CEO and the Chief
Policy Officer, with a copy to members of the Board's Executive Committee (http://www.icann.org/committees/executive/).
Once submitted, the constituency petition should be posted for public comment, at
which time the NC and other DNSO constituencies will have the opportunity to review
and comment. That, at least under my reading, is how the process would work under
the existing Bylaws. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00077.html
If constituencies are the electors for the NC, how should > constituencies
be created? Currently, they are by executive fiat (ICANN BoD). There is no other
mechanism and the existing one doesn't work. I submit that we, as a collective, do
NOT know how to do this and we may never know. I don't think consensus is possible
there. I don't believe that any method will be equitable, or even acceptable, to
those not constituted. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01449.html
I have been working on the method of forming constituencies, and have
decided that once the issue of identification is resolved (which in my view are of
a technical nature and are better handled by those of you who are technical in nature)
we should establish the following simple method of creating constituencies in the
future. Upon the submission of 200 verified signatories to a petition to create a
new constituency it shall be deemed created. A well publicized and standard form
shall be created and its' acceptance universal. Any and all procedures established
to accomplish this task will further the goal of liberal creation of constituencies.
Of course a simple method of notification and required appropriate response can be
established to the dissolution of a constituency if the need and interests so dictate.
This would be determined by participation, not official caveat. Over the entire discussions
on constituencies I have seen nothing to indicate a rational basis for restricting
constituencies. Who can predict what the future will bring us that will need a constituency.
(Gambling, games, medicine, children, interspace, addiction, Toll Free, superdomains,
dictatorships that deny access to citizens) All of the organizations which host web
sites which are antagonistic toward ICANN should have a constituency, if they can
garner the support. And from there they should have unfettered rights to gather support
within ICANN for their positions. Certainly these are the Stakeholders, and certainly
now they disenfranchised and forced outside and this is wrong. While I disagree with
many I would be proud to engage them within ICANN. Take the time to look up definitions
of constituency. The history of the word is beautiful and tragic. The idea that some
poor group is denied representative rights and therefore is not part of the constituency
has lead to some of the most abominable sins of mankind. Let us learn from history
and be inclusive rather than exclusive/ http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02241.html
CONSTITUENCY
CRITERIA
In addition, I think there should be a list of objective
criteria applied to all constituencies that the DNSO may rely upon to determine whether
the constituency is actually representative. This criteria should support the consensus-building
goals of the DNSO, which is to make policy recommendations to the BoD. Should we
attempt to list these? http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00166.html
At some level, to demand assurances that an individuals' constituency
will "represent that vast interests of individuals" may place on this proposed constituency
a burden not imposed on the others. It is hardly clear, for example, that the Business
and Commercial constituency represents "the vast interests of businesses," as opposed
to the interests of the particular businesses who are most active in that constituency's
affairs. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01333.html
Objective criteria of representativeness? Representative is a subjective
term, and there is no empirical way of determining it, though there are statistical
methods for determining if a sample is representative. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00172.html
I might suggest that if there is to be an "official" constituency structure
that there not only be objective rules of admission but also semi-yearly evaluations
that an official constituency continues to meet those rules - else if simply vanishes.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00187.html
I amended section II to reflect the fact that there should be some pertinent factor
that restricts what groups can obtain membership in the DNSO so that the DNSO can
function productively. The objective criteria and the membership ratio may actually
impact an existing constituency as well. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00331.html
.
I think it is important, however, to recommend tothe NC a process by which
future consitutencies may be added to the DNSO by reference to some objective criteria.
In that manner, the DNSO structure is altered to better reflect the future *possibility*
of bottom-up decision-making. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01493.html
A.) The constituencies should be as easily established as possible in
order to foster the highest degree of representation by various interests. B.) The
constitiuencies should be viewed as advocacy groups and not structured so as to obtain
votes within their group. All voting should be one person one vote. C.) The constituencies
should be facilitated by the larger organization in order to insure inclusion into
the larger picture. Permanent liason positions should be established within the organization
to help communicate the constituencies positions, and help them fit into the larger
picture. D.) Constituencies should be a factor that must be lobbied by the decision
makers in order to obtain support for their agendas. Accountablility and ready procedures
to rid the organization of decision makers who ignore constituents should be in place
to give the constituents effectiveness. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02225.html
I have found no specific opposition to the proposition that if there
is sufficient demand by participation then any constituency should be allowed to
be formed. I believe this to be consistent with the principal of Stakeholder representation.
As to integration: The structure is in place simply add them. It would appear that
an increase of the numbers of board members elected from the DNSO should be forthcoming.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02251.html
The current constituency structure within the DNSO if very rigid and from all appearances,
not truly representative. There is continued dissatisfaction within the Internet
community for, and a lack of understanding of, the DNSO. The following submission
deals with some specific aspects of the constituency structure but is not purported
to be a complete solution, only the basis for a possible start in the right directions.
Possible Structure ------------------ It is noted the current constituencies within
the DNSO have low member numbers. As such, the writer does not see them as being
representative. This is one of the first constituency issue that needs to be addressed.
Nor are all possible groups accounted for with the current constituency structure.
There would appear to be some artificial barriers in place to limit true representation.
I propose a reform of the current constituency model to the following: 1.0 The DNSO
set a mimimum membership level for any constituency at 500 members. 1.1 For each
100 members within a constituency one representative be elected within the constituency
to a Constituency Assembly. 1.2 No one constituency to have more than 10 such elected
representatives within the Constituency Assembly. 1.3 Membership to any and all constituencies
to be open to individuals that qualify for such membership. Given the understanding
effective participation levels will be limited to a few such memberships due to time
and resource constraints, this has a natural limiting factor built in. 1.4 Memberships
to be confirmed for voting priviliges at the local constituency level and information
provided to undergo strict privacy guidelines without any such information being
available aside from confirmation of membership. A land postal response to a specified
mailing address would seem the simplest to implement, much like the AtLarge induction.
2.0 Name Council Representatives are elected from within the Constituency Assembly,
not directly from the Constituencies. This adds another layer to the progression
from Constituency to the Names Council. Such a layer would allow for the selection
of best candidates for each Names Council position. It would also force more adhesion
and association between the different representatives of the Constituencies. It would
also allow for truer representation at the Names Council Level as it would directly
relate to the membership numbers within the Constituencies. 3.0 If a Constituency
gains a membership level of 2000 or over, such Constituency will be split into two
seperate and distinct constituencies. Such a split to maintain small conhesive groups
that will be possible for the constituencies to manage successfully. It would also
allow the new constituency to maintain representation in the Constituency Assembly.
This provision allows for growth in participation and representation. 4.0 The DNSO
to provide each Constituency with a mimimum Constitution including all mimimal management
aspects for a Constituency to manage their affairs. This will allow for uniform miminal
constitutions to be adopted by the constituencies. 4.1 The initial application of
the proposed constituency to include a complete Constitution for approval by the
Constituency Assembly. 4.2 Changes to a Constituency Constitution be permitted only
after approval from the Constituency Assembly. 5.0 The initial submission for inclusion
as a Constituency involve the Constituency Assembly, this may include the full approval
process or be an adjunct to the final approval at a higher level. 6.0 The Constituency
Assembly to institute auditing of the Constituencies to confirm membership numbers
on a regular basis. 7.0 The number of representatives on the Constitution Assembly
to be maintained at the correct ratio to membership numbers at all times. 8.0 If
a Constituency membership falls below 500, they will loose recognition of being a
Constituency and representation on the Constituency Assembly. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02255.html
Personally I think that providing any group meets some basic criteria,
they should be able to become a Constituency. I see it as being extremely limiting
to only allow specific groups and not considering others. I would like to see
a large number of groups with diverse representations. I would also see it
as an option for new constituencies to be formed by people as they find the current
ones do not suit their demographics. It needs a slight shift in thinking to develop
such a system, it would not be the DNSO forming the constituencies but groups of
people who share common interests forming their own group and then applying to the
DNSO for inclusion. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02569.html
ONE,
OR MANY?
It seems clear that there is widespread - almost consensus
- support for us to recommend a constituency of some kind here. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01420.html
I certainly agree with you that adding one new constituency to the DNSO is
insufficient to make the DNSO more productive and reflective of a democratic process.
The individual domain name registrants constituency is only one example of how the
DNSO lacks true representation of Internet stakeholders. I think we can agree on
modifications that would alter the voting power on the NC, and the problem of multiple
memberships in the constituencies. I would hesitate to sign on to an agenda to radically
alter the DNSO structure since that is almost certainly the death knell to the influence
of the work product from this WG. In other words, we would be wasting our time.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00185.html
That's a pretty watered-down way of presenting it, don't you think? Constituencies
have been "recommended" for two years, now. What the NC and the Board need is a demand
for equal representation in the DNSO for individual domain name holders, end-users,
and small businesses, by means of consitutencies for each of these legitimate and
obvious stakeholder groups. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01425.html
I personally find the GA to be a better way to form the fluid coalition
structure that I prefer over the existing pre-ordained "constituency" structure.
Moreover, the GA is essentially powerless today. If contituencies remain then I see
no alternative to a constituency that for individuals who own domain names. (Similarly,
I would see a need for constituencies for community groups, religious organizations,
K12 educational bodies, post K12 educational bodies, arts/music organizations, local
governments, international organizations, organized labor, small businesses, etc
etc.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00727.html
the board approved the constituancy structure and related application and i am certain
has heard your arguments on this subject on numerous occasions. i guess the next
step you might propose would be for the DNSO to establish anti-constituancies (we
could have an anti IP constituancy, anti-business constituancy, anti registrar constituancy,
anti-telco & isp, anti govt) what we have here is an IP debate which has been ongoing
since the IFWP and certainly isnt going to be solved in this forum. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00499.html
The question is, (and I don't know the answer) do the constituencies
fairly and adequately represent the interests of all their members? It is true that
everybody could fit in to at least one of the constituencies (I think). I wonder
if it is possible that only having 7 constituencies is simply too few to be effective
representation to the internet public as a whole. Does it makes sense to split them
down further so people can find a constit. that more closely matches their needs?
(I don't know enough to advocate this as a solution so I am throwing this out as
a suggestion for debate.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01092.html
I would much rather see hundreds of constituencies with memberships
of less than 1,000 than 6 constituencies with memberships in the tens or hundreds
of thousands. The only reason I can see for limiting the number of constituencies
(that have valid representative status) would be to limit participation and to allow
for greater control by a minority. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01406.html
At this point in time, however, we are apparently only considering how
to scale up representation on the ICANN board from seven categories of interest,
or "constituencies" in the ICANN view of that term, to add in a very much larger
"constituency" of DNOs. Frankly, if we can just cast our minds forward a few years,
don't we risk this being seen as mere tinkering? http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01105.html
Personally I consider it paramount that the DNSO has a number of different
constituencies formed under it to represent the largest possible number of users.
I see the constituencies being nodes of the DNSO that would provide feedback, discussion
and opinion. The DNSO would assign weighting to each constituency representing the
number of users affected, this would determine the voting rights for the constituency.
Such a system could absorb any cross membership amongst constituencies. For instance,
I am a business owner, run a non-profit organization and am also an independent domain
owner/holder. Why should I not have a say in all three constituencies if I desire.
The decisions made by them will affect me. The more constituencies formed, covering
a wide range of user participation will encourage greater participation by users,
the numbers within each constituency would be such that users would not be flooded
by participation in mailing lists and working groups. Limiting the number of constituencies
will have the effect of creating coke points and limiting true user participation.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01392.html
However I would suggest that the solution would be to expand the number of constituencies
rather than dismantling the model. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02566.html
The concerns I have about the way the DNSO views constituencies revolve
around the management model as it appears to be evolving. It seems to me that the
DNSO views constituencies as the only layer that can be established. I see it as
only the beginning layer. For instance, I would much rather see a large number of
constituencies formed, with criteria on membership numbers to enable voting in the
next layer that would be added once the constituency layer filled out and it became
necessary. I see the constituency layer as being the bottom layer with successive
layers added as the need arises. Each layer with representation from the previous
layer until we get to the top layer where interaction with ICANN is established.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01542.html
I do support adding more constituencies. In fact the more there are, the happier
I will be. They should be the ground swell to fill the ranks for widespread participation.
Representatives from them would then enable the establishing of another layer and
so forth. This will provide a good management model that will be must easier to maintain
and would provide for greater outcomes. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01542.html
Assuming working within existing structure (AWWES) At this point I would
like to understand the pros and cons of having as many constituencies as is reasonable.
I suggest that a very standard and easy (6) procedure be developed to allow these
groups to form. I believe this will lead to the following interlocking goals being
fulfilled: i) Bottoms up approach ii) within each constitiuency a likely consensus
can be arrived at. iii) position papers can be supplied to the (3) general assembly
and (4) names council to help assure that; iiii) Stakeholders views are represented
and considered iiiii) It can help (5) Work groups identify and focus on issues and
positions important to various constitiuencies. iiiiii) We can recognize where a
stated position is really coming from, for thos of us less used to political manuvering.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01735.html
I hope that we can add value to this constituency report by exploring the method
of establishing more constituencies in the future. I want this report to stand alone
and only wish it had stronger language, so I address this issue through the above
categories. A) By breaking down the membership into finer tuned constituencies we
can better facilitate working groups within those subject. B) By establishing a strong
standardized procedure for admitting or discharging a constituency we can adapt with
the times and areas of highest concern and interest. C) By allowing for constituencies
that can target a narrower interest we can create a more effective outreach in specific
areas. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01829.html
Looking again at the organizational chart I think several more constituencies
would not hurt at all. Once again this could be done simply by creating interest
blocks in the GA and increasing the percentage of directors flowing therefrom.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01882.html
True, I did not address the current existing Constituencies. Personally I would like
to see them remain with the provision they would have twelve months to reach the
required numbers. But as I have previously stated, the numbers used are not firm,
they are included for the purpose of reaching agreement through discussion. It is
not my intention to promote a decrease in the number of Constituencies. Rather, I
wish to see a large number of them introduced. Personally I would like to see an
IDNH/O and other Constituencies for such groups as Network Managers, Web Masters,
ccTLD Users, Specific Language Groups etc etc. I would like to see much higher participation
rates. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02304.html
PROPOSAL
FOR AN INDIVIDUAL'S CONSTITUENCY
The WG Review has reached
a consensus that a new Constituency be added to represent Individual Domain Name
Registrants. This WG is not going to address how to implement this new Constituency,
nor is it going to propose what group should represent them or how it is to be formed.
We only present that one should be formed or selected within six months. We ask that
this process be expedited in this way because we believe it to be an oversight not
to have included them in the process to begin with. We further hope that you would
put this matter on the agenda as a top priority and seek public comment on how this
constituency shall be formed and how it will contribute to the ICANN Budget. There
has been suggestions that an amount come directly from the registration of domain
names proportionate to the share of expenses this new constituency must pay.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01093.html
I have been watching carefully and so far I have not seen a single person oppose
the principle that the DNSO should have an IDNH constituency. In fact to my great
pleasure several members of the Names Council have explicitly posted in favour of
this. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00770.html
Should there be a constituency for individuals? Of the 31 respondents, 29 answered
"yes". In a similar poll run in the more secure polling booth, 37 of 40 respondents
answered affirmitavely. Due to the volume of material presented on this issue, it
was requested and approved as it's own topic in the report format by the WG.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01522.html
Motion "The WG Review has reached a near consensus that a new Constituency
be added to represent Individual Domain Name Registrants. This WG has not addressed
the matter of how to implement this new Constituency, neither has it proposed what
group should represent them, nor how it is to be formed. We only present that one
should be formed or selected within six months. We specifically propose
a dedicated working group be set up to come up with specific proposals and options
on the structure and functioning of the constituency. We ask that this process
be expedited in this way because we believe it to be an oversight not to have included
them in the process from the beginning. Furthermore, we hope this matter would be
put on the agenda as a top priority and that public comment will be sought
on how this constituency shall be formed. How an individual domain name registrants
constituency shall contribute to the funding of ICANN and the DNSO needs to be examined
by the dedicated working group. There is a view that such registrants already indirectly
fund ICANN and DNSO through their domain name fees which largely fund the Registrar,
Registry and ccTLD constituencies and this should be evaluated and negotiated with
those constituencies." Statement The @large is 1. a disorganized group of all
Internet users' diverse interests. 2. without Charter or Mission statement
3. without means of the members to contact each other 4. subject to a Study that
may reduce its representation on the Board or do away with it altogether 5. represented
by Directors that may be representing interests directly opposed to typical DN holders'
interests. 6. top-down and controlled by ICANN staff. 7. Unable to provide
policy formulations to the ICANN Board An Individual Domain Name Owners constituency
is: 1. formed naturally by people with a common interest-- bottom up and in control
of its own Charter and destiny 2. part of the DNSO where Domain Name Policy initiatives
are developed 3. a place where any Domain Name Owner gets a chance to be part of
the policymaking process, (and get the results to the attention of the Board) via
its own elected officers 4. a counterweight in the DNSO, giving it an opportunity
to be considerably more legitimate than it is now. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01435.html
While I support the idea of an Individual Domain Name Holder constituency,
I do not agree with the use of wg-review forum/list to get into the details of how
it might be organized, or any other level of granularity on the subject. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00218.html
This working groups' product was never intended in any way to allow
interpretation of its' mandate to mean dilution of representation of Individual domain
name owner/holders. It is the clear mandate, that within the existing structure,
Individual Domain Name Holder/Owners are to be given a much larger role in all facets
of ICANN. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02235.html
What we are concentrating on is gaining consensus support for the principle
that individual domain name holders are very much a legitimate stake holder who should
have representation through a constituency. Once we have achieved that then one can
look at how best to structure it so that it is difficult to capture - the best way
of course being a high membership. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01187.html
1. there is a consensus on the need to see the individual domain name
holdeship specifically considered at the same level as other large groups of domain
names registrants, registrars and registries forming the DNSO. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01566.html
Among the questions referred to this WG by the task force is the question:
Should there be a constituency for individuals? Of the 31 respondents, 29 answered
"yes". In a similar poll run in the more secure polling booth, 37 of 40 respondents
answered affirmitavely. Due to the volume of material presented on this issue, it
was requested and approved as it's own topic in the report format by the WG.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01825.html
Ok, the idea of
constituencies that don't go farther than an individual corporate group, not so hot,
but to get targeted individual domain name holders constituencies in the manner of
the commercial targeted constituencies might have some value, if it can be clearly
defined.-- http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00063.html
[IDNH] individual domain holder constituency, Report requested by WG-Review
Members It has been first seconded ("I would also second the proposal to form
a sub-working group for an IDNH constituency and would very much like to be involved
in that. I imagine this would be handled through this distribution list by adding
a separate numbered 11 category heading").. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00169.html
Should there be a constituency for individuals? yes (15 yes, 1 no, 1
no answer) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00174.html
Since support for the proposal seems to exist, and, since the statement indicates
no faith in the administration of the "At Large" thingy, why not propose, or, move
for, the creation of a constituency for individuals, if not one for individuals all
inclusive, and, not requiring the criterion of owning/holding a domain name, instead
of the individual name owners' constituency, then, a separate,and, additional constituency,
of individuals who do not have domain names, with that constituency having equal
say with all the other constituencies? People who lack domain names, are still affected
(as I was), by the policies, and, all who support the above proposal, in its entirety,
are (I believe) agreeing that individuals who do not have domain names, while they
have a legitimate interest, are, at present, unrepresented. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01362.html
No, I'm not a member of any constituency at the moment. That's by choice
- there are several I could qualify for without contortions. At the moment, I've
chosen to remain an unaffiliated GA member until an individual's constituency is
created. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00476.html
However, as the writer, there was certainly no intention on my part
to imply "constituency" as being a formal constituency within the existing DNSO structure
and this proposal, which has now apparently been sidelined to such a fate by what
would appear to be unilateral decision making process, was always intended to work
equally well in an alternative structure, should it be decided to abolish DNSO constituencies
in due course. It was precisely for this reason I initiated a strawpoll of members,
asking the following question: "Do you support representation for individuals in
DNSO along the lines of a new "constituency " ? . 15 members voted yes by email to
the list. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01536.html
There are stakeholders who are not yet included; namely, >individual
domain name registrants. 10. Should there be a constituency for individuals? yes
- 15 no - 1 no answer - 1 Surprise! There seems to be near-consensus on that. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00172.html
IDNO a constituency group of owners of names or color of title or authority.
Original membership in these groups should be very open and the goal of determining
proper filtering and identification to be accomplished within 6 months using a uniform
method applying the differing criteria. The first tasks of these groups other than
as outlined above shall be the defining of essential terms, words and expressions.
This shall be accomplished by open work groups within each group. Each group to issue
a final report to their chairman, by no later than July 1, 2001 The three chairman
and three alternates to provide reasonable definitions to be voted on by all three
groups members as a whole and adopted and published, No later than October 1, 2001.
The Second to put in place the method of establishing evolving constituencies. (we
have changed the term fluid to evolving, as some will become extinct) The Names Council
shall be reconfigured to have one council member per constituency. Constituencies
to be formed on a liberal basis in a format in align with that submitted by ... (final
form to be determined by internal procedures and voting in the GA & ALM )* The GA
shall have three members on the names council. The names council shall have it's
Chair and Co-Chair elected by the Constituencies and the GA as a Whole. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02649.html
The fundamental issue is whether or not individuals need representation
in DNSO. If we believe that it is, the bottom line is that we have to demonstrate
some progress is being made towards that end, whatever that may be, however imperfect
that may be, as fulfilling one of the duties of this WG. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01057.html
The IDNH DNSO Constituency is sometimes perceived as the panacea to
the AtLarge and DNSO problems - I do not believe it shall be, as the consumer Internet
perspective on ICANN is much larger than the domain names only. But there are some
issues focusing on the domain names itself, and therefore I am in favor of the IDNH
constituency under some conditions. I wish it to be an association of many associations
of individuals. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00720.html
There is no objection to the formation of a IDNH constituency. Also
that that constituency should have representation on the BoD. Also that a reliable
method must be formulated which will assure that the constituency be inclusive enough
to include holders, would be holders and basically anyone who is interested enough
to register. Furthermore it must be decided how much representation is afforded this
constituency and if it should be viewed as an additional source of revenue.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00528.html
i will say it again... frankly, i feel that an individual constituancy is a good
idea and have expressed that opinion on numerous occasions. i only am concerned that
the constituancy is "inclusive enough" and have viewed over the last 18 months a
continual strife in the ga to accomplish this "inclusiveness" goal. as you are aware,
i have no vote in the acceptance of any constituancy application (as this is presented
directly to the board) but i would be happy to personally endorse an application
which is "inclusive" http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00512.html
1) I am in favour of the creation of an individual domain name registrant's
constituency. The polling booth insists that I have to take a position on whether
I am in favour of them being holders or owners, something I think is irrelevant at
this juncture. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00860.html
b) "IDNH constituency membership is open to any group of individual
domain >name holders" I have almost no time to go into option (b), but this option
has recently been debated on idno-discuss. To have another constituency like the
NCDNHC, made up of "groups"(organizations?) would introduce all the problems associated
with weighing voting power of unequal groups, checking membership numbers of each
group, people playing different groups off against each other, groups made up of
hundreds of IP lawyers, ISP's or registrars with their individual Domains, in short
a BAD idea, compared to having an undivided constituency where each individual DN
holder has a single vote and all are equal. A better approach to channel inevitable
infighting and personality issues is allowing the natural formation of "parties"or
"factions" within a single Constituency of individuals. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00801.html
I would simply say either a) "IDNH constituency membership is open to
any person who is an individual domain name holder" or b) "IDNH constituency membership
is open to any group of individual domain name holders" This is dependant upon the
outcome of the first item on the 11.IDNH task list posted at http://www.idnh.org
Whatever the outcome it will be necessary to obtain a formal technical and legal
definition for "individual", "holder" and possibly "group". ( "domain name" is already
on the agenda). http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00750.html
As many posts to this list have indicated, Individuals are a special
case, and I think it is particularly important to express the WG's consensus in our
report to the NC that an individual domain name constituency be included in the DNSO
(I am assuming that this is a consensus position of this WG). http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01199.html
I also strongly support a constituency for individuals and have been
pleased to see that so far there has been a very high level of support. While there
are many issues to do with implementation and structure to work through I believe
it could be useful at an early stage to test in this WG the level of support for
the principle that individual domain name holders are a legitimate stakeholder in
ICANN/DNSO and that if a constituency structure is to remain, that there should be
one to represent domain name holders. I personally can not imagine how one could
argue that domain name holders are not a group deserving representation. One can
argue about how will they fund, what level of membership there should be to be viable
etc but I believe it will be useful and important for the QG to deal with the principle
in a timely manner. If we have clear consensus on that point then we can more usefully
advance the debate about the "how" rather than the "why". I have no doubt that
once there is a constituency (or representation of some sort) for domain name holders
then participation will increase from its current woeful level. Note that the constituency
need not be a single organisation but one may find a couple of dozen domain name
holder organisations come into existence and the constituency will be a balanced
(presumably on membership strength) representation of the multiple organisations.
This opens up a few worms though which are probably best left until we get past whether
we support the principle of representation. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00148.html
So far I have not seen anyone at all state they are against the principle
of an IDNH constituency and in fact many people now including yourself have said
they are in favour. Therefore are we as a Working Group in a position to state that
(for as long as there is a constituency structure) we believe the DNSO will be enhanced
by the addition of an IDNH constituency. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00520.html
It's very clear they support the Corporate interests only and individual
domain name holders should have an equal constituency to all of the others combined.
By that I include individuals from all countries. The individual is as important
as the organized coalitions that now have power. That should be recognized by anyone.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00215.html
Over the past eighteen months, advocates of an individual domain name owners' constituency
have sought to press their case to the Names Council and to the ICANN board. They
have failed so far, notwithstanding that the General Assembly has twice endorsed
the formation of a working group to examine the constituency. There are two reasons
behind this failure. First, absent enthusiasm for the proposal from major industry
players, the Board and the Names Council have felt no special urgency to move forward.
Indeed, it runs counter to the interests of current Names Council members to dilute
their influence by agreeing to the formation of additional constituencies. Second,
individual domain name holders, each of whom has only diffuse interests in Internet
governance, have little incentive to join or organize a constituency-in-formation,
and therefore group proponents have not succeeded in organizing individual domain
name holders into any broad-based and representative group onto which the mantle
of "constituency" could fall. Absent effective representation for individuals, though,
together with other measures to reduce the current Names Council skew in favor of
organized commercial interests, it is hard to argue that the DNSO policy making process
represents the domain name community in any meaningful way. There should be
a constituency for individuals.http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00055.html
Yes, individual domain name holders represent a large portion of the
DNS and should have their own constituency. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00054.html
We
have not put the constituency model through it's full paces. We need a balanced way
to get valid constituencies in place by self organization where possible. Where not
practical, then the model we have initiated in our proposed pre-organized skeleton
for an individual domain name holders/owners constituency to be put in place if there
is a true call for it in fact, not just in the ideal of those of us putting it forward.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02605.html
There
are intrinsic difficulties with any constituency that allows direct membership of
individuals, and that is supposed to be representative of individuals -- there are
millions of individuals. The business, IPC, and NCC constituencies have organizational
members, and some of those organizations have memberships in the thousands. Thus,
these other constituencies indirectly represent many thousands of members.
I don't see any easy way to address this disparity. This is an intrinsic problem,
a conflict between indirect representation in some areas and direct representation
in others. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00056.html
How to represent the IDNHolders if there is no constituency structure?
Total number of voters: 19 not at all 3 15.7895% other: please specify 9 47.3684%
turn the GA into an electoral college 7 36.8421% Comments: · Depends 100% on structure
chosen to replace constituencies · This question is invalid without knowing what
possible structures may replace the current model. I prefer a model with small groups,
larger in number at the bottom level that report up and are represented in higher
levels. · through self defined Centers of Interest, SIG, etc.. with NC representation
if approved/yearly confirmed bythe GA · I have requested, on the mailing list, clarification
of the relationship between the constituencies and the Names Council, and, none has
been forthcoming. I am unable to make an informed vote. · Please refer to my previous
comments. · Let the NC stand for election before members of the ICANN@LARGE. Let
the Commercial Interests, other stakeholder groups, and individuals finance the campaigns.
An eletoral college approach based on ICANN regions, not constituencies, is preferred.
· Premature question. WG should first review various models. · This is a premature
question. If we reatin the C structure, then a should be WG established to tackle
this question. · I won't lend my support to any thought that there may be some lesser
acceptable alternative to a fully empowered IDNH constituency (short of elminating
constituencies altogether) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01766.html
Yes, and as ISOC members, if we don't like what our representatives
are doing, we have a process by which they can be removed. The 100000 individuals
supposedly "represented" by a single idno member have no such process; the members
of idno are not accountable to the larger potential membership, and have no claim
as "representatives". This is not the case in other constituencies, where there is
an actual delegation of authority, however informal, from organizations with a much
larger membership. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00134.html
This is a first list of questions, please add/comment on the relevance.
At this stage we do not look for debate. The plan is to listi these questions for
further reference on the temporay http://idnh.org site by tomorrow (this temporary
site should become http://idnh.dnso.org as soon as the constituency process progresses).
- should the DNSO/IDNH be a direct GA of individual domain name holders (with potentially
millions of Members)? or should it be an union of services, associations, etc.. of
individual domain name holders on a model similar to the DNSO/BC? Or should it be
organized in cooperation with local NICs or TLDs as TLD/national chapters? or other
formulas? - would it be appropriate to set up a temporary action team for this subject
list with the Members of this WG-Review who seconded this motion? - would there be
exsiting organizations interested in IDNH issues which could be provided a link on
the temporary http://idnh.org site ? - what are the priorities of DNSO/IDNH Members
in term of domain name management, allocation stability and legal protection: - in
reference to ICANN - in reference to UDRPs - in reference to Registries and ccTLDs
- in reference to Registras - in reference to national laws to be proposes - in reference
to which other topics? - would it be a priroity to request a formal technical and
legal definition of what is a domain name in order to know what we are talking about
in contracts, laws, rules, UDRP, IP, copyrights, freespeach, etc... - would it be
advisable to consider this subject list as the kernel of an IDNH constituency? and
to report it as such to the BoD, the Staff and the NC? - would it be of interest
to have this individual domain name holders subject list to work together/in synergy
with the future @large Study Group to better define the common interest issues (DNSO)
and the protection of the individual business interest (@large). - would it be of
interest to request from BoD and Staff to organize a constitution meeting of the
DNSO/IDNH constituency in Melbourne? - would it be of interest to request from the
Staff the creation of a idnh.dnso.org mailing list to better prepare such a meeting?
- evolution of the DNS system is made through the CRADA agreement and the root development
through the SSRAC. Would it be of interest to ask the responsibles of these programs
to dialog with the individual domain name holders for them to better understand the
business opportunities which may come from novative uses of the DNS system. - would
it be of interest to initiate a similar dialog with the different groups and interests
involved in multilingual domain names? In particular would be intersting to investigate
a common study with the MINC which mainly focus on muli-lingual domain name issues,
in particular in he area of the application of TM protection to foreign languages
and sounds? - would it be opportune for an individual domain name owner constituency
to ask for a financial contrinbution? Would some organizations want to sponsor such
a constituency? Under which terms? http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00176.html
I can't believe this argument exists. Who on earth really cares what
the name is, IDNH or IDNO, or DONUT? Why does it make a difference? http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01144.html
I would agree with you if : 1. the IDNH issue had been not consistently
delayed (the WG has been partly set up to address the problem that this consistuency
has not been organied) and therefore I take it as an identified part of the constituency
general problem to solve. 2. the fact that the DSNO has hosted @large interest and
must disengage makes the IDNH - as a separate entity form the IDNO - a structural
aspect. We cannot talk about a DNSO reform without caring about the way 20 or 100
millions of Members will be integrated. 3. Due to the size and the commonly agreed
need of the IDNH we have a good example whihc permits us to see the difficulty/the
complexity of creating a center of interest while having it formalized as you
request. We have to produce a documented response. I think that IHDN (size) and (STLD
because of the easy identifaction of the Members) are good examples for us to observe
and report. 4. I would also like to show, through some new examples - so there is
not yet any historic - that center of interests must dialog together. And that IDNH
interests cover issues of interest to all or cross interests like UDRPs with TMs,
member names with sTLDs etc... This is on my opinioin one of the reason of the DNSO
failure: the lack of internal relations. I am surprised as a DNSO/BC member at the
absence of any information, any discussion ... Now I fully agree that we should not
go to a detailed approach and that this should be reserved to a separate subWG list.
This is what I asked for initially and what will be partly carried de facto withthe
site we will open these days. But my initial motion has been seconded by several
members and supported by others with the provision it would be a subject on YJ Park's
list. In summarizing the points risen by several to comply with the WG-Review standard,
I asked for additional questions, not for responses nor debate. I will certainly
collect these responses but they were not expected. After all the WG-Review members
decide (this is also what we want). Now, your personnal position as a NIC very near
from your users might be a source of some DNSO/IDNH related action points of interest
for the NC and the BoD? http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00227.html
There should be a constituency for individuals. So far, relatively few
individuals have participated in the proposed IDNO. An important reason why participation
has been so low, however, is that so far it has had no payoff. Individuals do not
have constituency status, and a detached observer might be forgiven for concluding
that it is unlikely that the Names Council and the Board will grant them that status.
Energy expended on participation at this juncture, therefore, is likely to be in
vain. By contrast, if such a constituency were in fact created, with the ability
to elect and instruct Names Council representatives, I would expect participation
to be much more extensive and more broadly based. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01333.html
I imagine a summary of opposing positions would be included in the report
with respect to possible IDNH constituency formulation (whether this is to fit into
existing constituency structure or yet to be formulated new structure.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00224.html
The early members of the IDNO have discussed this membership issue at
length on the idno-discuss list and have come up with the membership criterium of
"color of title" to a Domain name. (roughly: if an Individual has the power to cancel
the Dname, (s)he has colour of title) Not to re-invent the wheel all over, please
refer to www.idno.org/organiz.htm Art 4. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00635.html
Title refers to Ownership to most who read it as does IDNO. Doesn't
the O represent the word Owner as well. The reason holder is better is that domain
names are not property anymore than a telephone number. This is also why Trademarks
should not apply to them. They are not equivalent to property, nor are they equal
to filing a DBA or Assumed Name to do business under. If we fought to make Domain
Nams Holders to be Owners then the Trademark issues might be considered valid. As
it stands now, Trademarks should not apply to them. Ever known anyone to get sued
for their phone number because on the keypad it spelled someone's company name? I
don't know of one instance. So personally I am the Holder of my domain names. No
title. No ownership. It's simply the letters designated to represent the numbers
to get you to my website. Nothing more nothing less. Therefore (Off Topic) There
is no place for a TM Constituency. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00696.html
d) New Constituency The most visible and audible demand from Review
WG apart from "Drop the Constituencies" is to recognize "Individual Domain Name Holders/Owners"
in the Internet Policy-making process since its beginning. There have been counter-
argument that individuals can be represented through At-Large which will result in
duplicated representation in the ICANN. However, this following comment on this issue
has some valid points, too. "If the logic that is being used to block the individual
domain name holders constituency were applied to the other constituencies they too
would have to be dissolved because they are, under the rubric of that logic, represented
via the at-large." In addition to such requests, from its early stage WG members
and the current WG D Chair together, discussed the formal procedure to set up new
constituencies. Here is a proposal to add new constituencies with formality. [Appendix
6] http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01332.html
All right, there appears to be very valid reasons why we should not create a new
constituency. It would appear that rather than a constituency, IDNH should just naturally
occur within the GA. However if a constituency is required simply for the purpose
of shifting the power base from controlling business interests to where it more correctly
belongs, with the users, then perhaps it is a necessary step. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01911.html
>If the word Holder is a prerequisite for being acceptable by the NC,
then >let's hear that from the NC members, who are on the Task Force and present
here. I don't think it is a huge issue and certainly support the concept of an individuals'
constituency regardless of what it is called. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01127.html
Proposal
for Criteria for Membership of DNSO/IDNH ( Basic Model a - a direct GA of individual
domain name holders )
1.1.IDNH constituency membership is open to any person who
is an individual domain name holder
1.1 An Individual Domain Name Holder is any
person who can demonstrate a level of control over a specified domain name that a
reasonable person would conclude grants the individual person the exclusive legal
right to exploit the specified domain name worldwide subject to applicable laws.
1.2
Examples of items that may be submitted in support of an application include but
are not limited to
(i) evidence of applicants name on domain contact information
(ii)
evidence of applicant's funds used to pay registration fees, if any
(iii) evidence
that the applicant may cause the domain name to be relinquished
(iv) evidence
that the applicant is the beneficial holder of any domain name that is registered
or operated by a third party
(v) Where the applicant does not hold direct control over
the domain name, written evidence must be provided that the controlling party is
acting on instructions of the beneficial holder and that such instructions may be
withdrawn at the applicants sole discretion.
ADDITIONAL RULES
1.3 An individual shall
not be entitled to more than one membership of IDNH
1.4 Where there is more than
one holder of a single domain, that domain would not meet criteria for membership.
1.5
No single domain name may be used to support membership of more than one individual.
1.6
The domain name used to meet criteria for membership shall not be a top level domain
name or a reserved second level Domain name in registries where this level is not
open for individual registration.
1.7. Membership is subject to approval by the Committee
(i)
The Committee shall be elected by the membership of the IDNH
(ii) Such
committee shall examine the totality of the facts.
(iii) Decisions of the committee are final.
(iv) The membership committee shall have three members.
1.9
A person who is a member of another DNSO constituency shall not be eligible for full
membership of IDNH, but may be invited to contribute to from time to time as guest,
advisor or consultant. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00819.html
1) I don't think the other model will work well when membership grows
from say 150 to let's say 3,000 or so. Can you imagine what the members discussion
list will be like - impossible to manage. 2) If the constituency basically consists
of direct memberships you face the possibility of tyranny of the majority in that
if 51% support one position then there is no representation at all for the minority
49%. 3) Not all individual domain name holders will have similar beliefs and interest
and rather than try and force them all together in the constituency I believe you
will get more people involved by allowing people to all form their own association
and have the constituency consist of a council of representatives from them, proportional
to the membership of each. You could well get country based assns, regional based
assns, policy based assns and people will join the one they support. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00843.html
It's up to them to choose who or what group should represent Individual
Domain Name Holders. It's up to us to make sure our recommendation is that they do
select SOMEONE for this so an IDNH Constituency will happen. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01053.html
Members will naturally self-organize into groups once the list becomes
unmanageable under the opposing model a. Under this model, (model b) you are imposing
a barrier to entry in that Individuals would have to join yet another group/ association
before membership of IDNH was allowed. I don't support this "top down" model for
that reason. I agree with 100% this needs further discussion after the consituency
is in place, but first we need to agree there is to be IDNH constituency (did we
do that by formality yet?), who is eligible to join (the other thread on this topic)
and what is their purpose in life and how it will be accomplished, otherwise we have
an empty vessel. For now, can we agree something on the two basic models goes into
the wg-report and ask to add the two opposing viewpoints to the idho.org
repository for centers of interest, or what is your suggestion? http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00899.html
I vote YES for establishment of IDNH http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01163.html
This is not the WG for registries or just DNS operators. Its the WG
to set up an individuals constituency. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01748.html
Some may argue that the DNSO should have no say in the structure in
that it is up to constituencies to totally self organise and petition the Board.
I believe a case can be made that an individuals' constituency is somewhat unique
as oppossed to others which have considerable more resources through existing businesses
and organisations participating in them. Therefore I think there is a good case for
a DNSO WG to work and propose a structure which will be able to gain widespread support.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01126.html
Do you favor the admission to the DNSO of an Individual DN holder's constituency
Total number of voters: 32 Favour such a constituency 30 votes 93.75% (distinction
IDNO/IDNH ignored) Against such a Constituency 2 votes 6.25 % http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01312.html
I strongly agee with allowing factions or parties to form naturally
around principles and personalities. For model B. someone (the NC?) would still have
to create an entire constituency charter, specifically dealing with an organization
composed of multiple organizations. This is far from a trivial exercise. Each of
these organizations would have to have charters as well, to be created from scratch
and to be approved by the . Looking at the time it took the NCDNHC to agree on their
charter, you are talking about at least a year to accomplish that. A giant step back
from what we have now. For what?? As of now, we have already a charter that has been
much discussed (fought over) and ratified by a large number of typical Individual
DN owners. The membership criteria distilled from the IDNO site are workable. Charter
modifications have a straightforward procedure. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00927.html
If there is an opposing viewpoint when discussed, I agree that both
opinions, whether in majority or minority, be presented. However I urge all Members
of this list that are for creating the IDNH to present a united front on the issue
and leave the details to be discussed within the IDNH as an internal matter, after
it has approval. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00968.html
In favour of an IDNH constituency? Total number of voters: 22 NO 4 18.1818%
YES 18 81.8182% Comments: · I would like to see many more constituencies added. ·
OK for IDNH, not for constituency · I want a question also put; "If the constituency
structure is retained, do you support the addition of a constituency for individuals
who do not have domain names?". · Under this senario, I would also favor the addition
of a constituency for individuals (people) · THIS IS IMPERATIVE FOR LIGITIMACY IF
WE ARE TO KEEP THE STRUCTURE http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01765.html
Creating a DNSO/IDNO constituency is so difficult a task and opposed
by so many interests. But it will never happen, however half the people on
this WG-Review have been a Member of IDNO and three candidates out of three
belong to it (the forth is not a Member most probably because he also did not know
it by then, but learns fast!). But there will never be a DNSO/IDNO because - the
DNSO is to resume its SO role and the objective of the IDNO are much broader as a
management tool. But beware It will be a key component of the @large system if its
Members understand it properly (if the IDNO plays its part correctly it could very
well eventually be the real owner of the ICANN, from the French Minitel experience
we had both in France and in the US). - the DNSO constituency system is obsolete
and will disapear as soon as a certain number of constituencies understand what @large
is about and other may take their role if they do not reorganise quick. - the IDNH
is only a center of interests, a subject for people to work together on individual
domain name holding related general problems. Its role is to uncover the underlaying
consensa on the matter and to document them to the benefit of the community and of
the BoD; and then to derive, from the expertise of all those who want to participate,
advises concerning the way to apply changes, new possibilities, legal options, etc..
at it is the role of an SO. Please consult the bylaws. All is in there. IDNH is for
lawyers, engineers, representatives from IDNO like organization with a strong training
in Internet issues. It has no Members, but Participants keeping contibuting through
published and maintained position statements until a consensus has been acknowledged
by everyone. It is some place to work seriously, competently among representive by
qualification. This is the same for the other DNSO/GA/CI resulting form this WG-Review
about DN, TLD, Consensus digging tools and methods. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00981.html
All right, there appears to be very valid reasons why we should not
create a new constituency. It would appear that rather than a constituency, IDNH
should just naturally occur within the GA. However if a constituency is required
simply for the purpose of shifting the power base from controlling business interests
to where it more correctly belongs, with the users, then perhaps it is a necessary
step. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00993.html
I support the IDNH concept, period. This IDNO stuff is new, and diverts energy from
your original concept. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01018.html
What about constituencies being "self forming" ? There are over 200
members of the IDNO, and even allowing that only 60 odd are active on the list (rumors
of its demise greatly exaggerated), it is at least already in existence as a group
of people. Perhaps more should be made aware of it? Certainly there are many people
within that would be keen to follow any structuring advice that would give it a better
voice/recognition. The IDNO, like any other group especially diverse individuals
has its moments of chaos but it is better to self form and get recognition than to
be mandated into existence, because its embarrassing that one has not been recognized
yet! http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02808.html
Setting up a dedicated WG for discussing structure and functioning of an IDNH constituency?
Total number of voters: 22 Don’t support 2 9.0909% Other (please use comment line)
5 22.7273% Support 15 68.1818% Comments: · this WG , if it adopts a Charter would
actually become the constituency itself · I would like to see working groups for
not only this but to look at the structure and implementation of all the constituencies.
· do not support constituency structure - but will go along grudgingly with an individuals
constituency in absence of eliminating the constituencies altogether. · support once
removed the insults to the @large · stop delaying · The @Large, as a registry and
un-organized voter pool is of value in it's own right. I have no problem with the
status quo reflected in points 1 2 & 3 under @Large heading, provided that @Large
votes impact may ICANN substantively. · Simply instruct the NC to tell the Board
to create a constituency for Individuals - a working group on the subject will just
end up being another morass and add more delay. · STRONGLY SUPPORT AND URGE IMMEDIATE
ACTION http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01764.html
I agree here that the nature of such a constituency will be a special
case and need more than just saying "Guys go form an international individuals constituency
which will make everyone happy and then submit it to us". I'm not sure I would say
the organisation has to be top down but more a collective effort between ICANN/DNSO
and those interested in getting such a constituency established. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01646.html
But let's keep the topic of naming the Constituency that we all (bar one,
so far) want to a discussion and consensus within the Constituency. A Constituency
must define itself. If the word Holder is a prerequisite for being acceptable by
the NC, then let's hear that from the NC members, who are on the Task Force and present
here. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01066.html
> I understand that there was dissent amongst the NC representatives from the > other
constituencies about whether or not this review should even include GA > and @Large
members and there is certainly no guarantees being given that > such outreach will
happen again with frequency, if ever. So the answer is > no, at this moment in time,
you, as an individual, do not have a right to > any representation, sorry. > > That
is exactly why some of us here are fighting so passionately to reach > consensus
on the IDNH constituency issue and at personal expense I may add. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01112.html
THE
ISSUE OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S CONSTITUENCY AND "GAPS"
Most people
want clear choices laid out before them and imho there is nothing wrong with the
suggestion to identify factions that are not currently represented, as a practical
approach to solving present difficulties and filling some, if not all of the most
obvious gaps (such as STLD and IDNH ). Added to that, there may be infinite initiatives
presented directly to the BoD, but I suggest that at least a significant minority
will never be able to create the opportunity for themselves, however willing they
may be. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00121.html
On the contrary, I believe your view may be the unrealistic one. I have
to agree that the potential for infinite constiuencies exists as a quagmire,
and should be avoided. As you said below, there are "obvious gaps" that can be addressed.
Most of these have been *identified* already. I believe it is imperative now to fill
these "obvious gaps", not identify new constituencies. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00123.html
I wish to raise the issue of "partitioning" of interests. The existing
constituencies barely overlap, but I am concerned that the proposed IDNHC must be
seen as occupying a distinct place between the NCDNHC and IPC. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00363.html
OPPOSITION
TO INDIVIDUAL'S CONSTITUENCY
One of the real concerns here
is that you explicitly don't want to create a constituency that consists of a small
group people who care deeply about some issue, because that is intrinsically unbalanced.
An organization with 35 million members is certainly going to give a more balanced
view of things than an organization with 200 members all of whom are very concerned
about some single set of issues. To put it in a blunt, concrete example, the ICC
is going to give a far, far more representative and balanced view of the interests
of small business than a constituency composed entirely of individuals who lost a
UDRP action, domain speculators and cybersquatters, and alternate root afficianodos.
One of the major concerns of those opposed to an individuals constituency, in any
form, is that it would be a magnet for angry individuals with "axes to grind". The
vast majority of people don't have axes to grind, and don't have time participate,
so the angry ones will take over the constituency. But angry individuals with axes
to grind are not representative of individuals in general. This is not just theory,
of course -- to date this has been observed in every single attempt to organize an
individuals constituency. I think it is this phenomenon, incidentally, which led
to the board's cooling toward IDNO -- initially there was support on the board,
but that evaporated when it became clear that the IDNO was a code name for the "anti-ICANN"
constituency. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01161.html
MORE
OPPOSITION: THE @LARGE IS AN INDIVIDUAL'S CONSTITUENCY
There IS a constituency for individuals- it is the At-Large! and it now holds 5 seats
on the ICANN Board. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00366.html
There IS a constituency for individuals- > > it is the At-Large! Which
the BoD has tried to eliminate > > and it now holds 5 seats on the ICANN Board. Which
may not matter after the "Study" of the At-Large, which study may include disolution
or other removal of the At-Large-Memebership as a factor in ICANN. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00378.html
@LARGE
AS CONSTITUENCY - REBUTTAL
Please describe the mechanism by
which the @large "constituency" participates in the DNSO's origination of domain
name policy. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00370.html
I find no reference at all to the DNSO at that page. Nor have I ever
heard a suggestion that the @large will participate in developing domain name policy
with the DNSO. I think you are a little confused. In point of fact, the @large membership
has no brief to initiate policy in ICANN, and will probably cease to exist as soon
as the Board's "At-large Review Committee" has finished its machiavellian chores.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00377.html
Please, please, please, let review the icann.org site for: 1. White Paper 2. MoU
3. By laws 4. @large Members pages 5. Staff Document on @large Study 6. Decisions
by BoD, Santiago, Cairo, Yokohama, MDR, .... 7. different letters by Barabra Simons,
Thomas Roessler, Hans Klein, Jefsey Morfin, etc... 8. http://icann-fra.org etc...
etc... etc... @large is everything BUT an DNSO constituency! http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00387.html
The At-large membership is not a part of the DNSO policy-making process.
Although there are At-large Board members, at-large members have no representation
on the Names Council, without which they cannot participate in passing proposals
to the Board. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00471.html
At large is one thing. A constituency of individuals who own domain
names for personal rather than commercial or non-profit use is another. Saying an
"individual constituency" exists when those domain name holders have no representation
in the DNSO is a mistake, regardless of at large. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01250.html
However the at large membership is not a constituency. It has no methods
by which to communicate with each other, it is not consulted on specific issues -
all it does is elect five Board Members. Now while this is very important it is not
the same as being represented in the DNSO as a constituency where in theory DNS policy
is meant to originate from. I believe it is entirely reasonable to want both
an at large membership which elects 9 of the 19 Board places and an IDNHC constituency
within the DNSO. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01269.html
Don't forget, folks in all the other constituencies can also join the
at-large. If the logic that is being used to block the individual domain name holders
constituency were applied to the other constituencies they too would have to be dissolved
because they are, under the rubric of that logic, represented via the at-large.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01280.html
The At-large has nothing whatsoever to do with DNSO constituencies. That is a smokescreen
of confusion put up here by ISOC/CORE, who are creating the same diversions
as always, and getting away with it, in the existing constituencies, including the
NCDNHC. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01425.html
there is an irreductible disagreement between: a) those who think that
the constituency system must be removed first through a modification in the bylaws
and then to be carried a serious joint study with the all the concerned parties including
the @large Study Group over the two years to come (the planed duration of that group),
b) those who want a long and complex process to be started within the existing constituency
model to respresent the individual domain name registrants interests. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01566.html
The thought even crossed my mind that all this talk of an added IDNH/O
Constituency is quite possibly a smokescreen for the dissolution of the @Large Membership.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02128.html
The DNSO is responsible for recommending *domain name policy* and not making ICANN
re- organization recommendations (even if they don't *appear* as such!). Also, the
@Large is not responsible for policy recommendations. The functions of the proposed
IDNH/O and the @Large are therefore quite distinct, and *must not* be lumped together
in some sort of simplified revision of the facts. Finally, IDNH/O membership imples
domain holdership/ownership, this is *not* the case or qualification for the @Large
membership. This WG has not effectively sanctioned any correlation between the @Large
and the IDNH/O!!!!!!!!! Any such revisionary activity is highly suspect and culpable.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02231.html
f one is willing to say that the at-large absorbs the need for a DNSO constituency
for individual domain name owners, then it is equally true that the at-large absorbs
the need for DNSO constituencies for businesses, intellectual property interests,
registries, ane registrars. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02232.html
PROPOSAL:
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AS A CONSTITUENCY
For example, a possibility
I suggested long ago was that the GA should be given three votes on the NC. I no
longer consider this such a good solution, but there are unique problems with an
individuals constituency that make consideration of alternatives important. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00056.html
Actually, this is why some of us are in favor of the GA getting it's
own vote on the NC and recognition by the ICANN BoD. I think that this is a good
bicameral model. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00273.html
I think that the GA is the single most important and under-represented
organ in the DNSO. Not only should the GA continue to exist, it should elect NC seats
directly. If the constituency system fails, as it has, the GA is the only viable
fall-back. Otherwise, we have nothing and the DNSO implodes. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00271.html
The apparent strength of feeling that the GA should be represented on
the NC has not been adequately explored. To what extent is the desire to see
the GA represented on the NC motivated by belief that the current constituencies
are not in fact a complete partition of interests, or - furthermore - that no such
partition is possible? http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00364.html
I have proposed several mechanisms for creating such an organization
-- in my comments submitted through the Non Commercial Constituency I described a
scheme by which the GA could be morphed into such a structure, which has the advantage
of gradual and controlled development; quite some time ago I proposed another approach,
which you can see at http://at-large.org -- the basic idea is that the constituency
would at the start be managed by an *appointed excom*, with elections following some
time after the membership had reached a certain size and representativeness.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01487.html
To the question "Should the GA be represented in the NC" 10 replied affirmitively,
and one disagreed. To the question " If changes are made in the constituency structures,
should the GA continue to exist?" there were 11 in agreement, and no opposition.
Though this would appear to be a consensus, the question was not cast in consensus
form and is being reported as an 11-0 majority. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01537.html
When I look at the current DNSO structural model, at the most rudimentary
level I see two groups of participants... those who by dint of their contractual
relationship with ICANN are obligated to adhere to "consensus policies", and those
who have no such contractual relationship. I question the wisdom of the former group
having been granted "voting rights" in the Names Council, as it would seem to me
that "observer status" would be more appropriate. I also wonder why the GA doesn't
have a large block of seats on the Names Council as that too, in my humble opinion,
seems appropriate. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02634.html
I see a need for greater public participation in the DNSO, and believe
that enhancing the power of the GA through granting it seats on the Names Council
would be an effective way to increase Public participation. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02639.html
If the constituency structure of the DNSO remains unchanged, we urge
that the ICANN Board of Directors replace Article VI-B Section 4 with the following
text: (a) The GA shall be an open forum for participation in the work of the DNSO,
This work includes but is not limited to work item proposal and development; discussion
of work items proposed by the Names Council; draft document preparation; research
on topics of interest to the DNSO; and recommendations of policies and procedures
for the internal use of the DNSO. Adopted reports or recommendations of the GA shall
be passed to the Names Council in a timely manner. (b) The GA shall be open to all
who are willing to contribute effort to the work of the DNSO. Participants in the
GA should be individuals who have a knowledge of and an interest in issues pertaining
to the areas for which the DNSO has primary responsibility. (c) Membership in the
GA shall consist of those individuals listed in the GA Voting Registry. (d) Participants
in the GA shall nominate, pursuant to procedures adopted by the NC and approved by
the Board, persons to serve on the Board in those seats reserved for the DNSO. (e)
Officers of the GA shall include a chair, a co-chair, and an ombudsman. Officers
of the GA shall be elected annually according to the voting procedures adopted by
the GA and approved by the NC. (f) The Officers of the GA shall be members of the
Names Council. (g) The ombudsman shall be responsible for investigating process issues
within the DNSO, including but not limited to conflicts involving the Names Council
as a whole. The ombudsman shall report directly to the ICANN Board of Directors.
(h) Each constituency formed under Article VI-B Section 3 of these bylaws shall select
one member as the constituency observer to the GA. Each observer will be responsible
for informing their constituency of the GA's current activities on a timely basis.
(i) The GA shall meet physically at least once a year, if possible in conjunction
with regularly scheduled meetings of the Board. To the maximum extent practicable,
all meetings should be available for online attendance as well as physical attendance.
(j) The costs of physical GA meetings shall be the responsibility of the DNSO, which
may levy an equitable, cost-based fee on GA attendees to recoup those costs. There
shall be no other fees required to participate in the GA. The costs of GA mailing
lists or other online mechanisms for performing the work of the GA shall be the responsibility
of the DNSO. (k) The GA shall adopt it's internal procedures as it sees fit, so long
as they are fair, transparent, and consistent with these by-laws. (l) Upon application
by no less than five members of the GA, the Chair of the GA may recognize a Special
Interest Group (SIG). Upon such recognition, a SIG shall have a mailing list created
by the Secretariat of the DNSO. Each SIG shall have a clearly defined interest area,
and shall produce regular reports for the GA's consideration in that area. Each application
shall contain a definition of the interest area; a SIG name; and the SIG's method
for self-organization. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02706.html
CIVIL
RIGHTS/LIBERTIES CONSTITUENCY
In a few days I could supplement
it with more specific information about the problems in the non-commercial constituency.
There have been discussions within the constituency of the gap between civil rights/civil
liberties groups and education/research networking organizations. A civil rights/civil
liberties constituency is a natural counterpart to the Intellectual property constituency
- it makes no sense to have one without the other. But, to repeat my broken record,
it makes more sense to document problems at this stage than to propose specific constituencies
or structural solutions. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00470.html
A constituency, if we must have that system, for civil liberties and
civil rights would satisfy me. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00554.html
I'd say the most urgent was a constituency for groups working on civil
liberties, privacy, etc. on the net -- EFF, GILC, CPSR, ... -- if only to counterbalance
the big business and trademark interests. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00746.html
SMALL
BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY
And so, now the owners of small business
want their individual and business interests represented. Those interests have NOT
been represented. I had no idea all this was going on until I found out the hard
way that I was losing my rights as an individual and a small business owner. Big
business interests are NOT the Net majority that registers a domain name, they do
NOT represent the Internet consumers, they do NOT represent the huge diversity of
business on the Internet, and they are the business interests that have been EXCLUSIVELY
catered to in that so-called 'consensus' that resulted in the current structure.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01038.html
A small-business constituency would be a very good thing. Would it be useful to think
in terms of usage here? That is, individuals might register a domain name for business
purposes - in that case, their issues might be addressed in a small business constituency.
Individuals and families might also register a domain name for personal purposes
- family genealogy, to promote their hobbies, to publish their personal work, and
so on. While it can be argued that small-business interests have a niche in the business
constituency, people who register a name for personal use clearly lack any vehicle
for directly affecting the makeup of the NC or BoD unless they also fit into another
group. However, it is a truism that the interests of large corporations are not necessarily
the interests of small business. That's why there is a Small Business Administration
as part of the US Government. It's pretty clear that the SBA would like to see both
an individuals' constituency AND a small business constituency, but people need to
organize both. A similar situation to the "small/large business" issue exists within
the non-commercial constituency, where the concerns of the educational community
may very well differ from the concerns of charitable organizations (just an example).
To some extent, I think the issues of fora and representation are a chicken and egg
thing. More people or small businesses or educational institutions need to be involved
in order to create constituencies, but without constituencies in place it's very
hard to get them involved. It would be useful for the NC to recognize this issue
and find ways to address it. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01041.html
The Internation Chambers of Commerce, for example, represents literally
MILLIONS of SMALL businesses, and the International Chambers of Commerce is a member
of the business constituency. The Business Constituency is organized to include *organizations
representing businesses*, and collectively they represent a huge number of businesses,
of all sizes. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01049.html
Percentage
of Consumers versus
Companies Registering Domain Names
85% of registrants
are companies, BUT 75.5% of companies registering domain names are small businesses,
in fact, the smallest of the small: 1 - 4 employees. also:
...the average
income of domain name purchasers is $35,000-75,000 http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01055.html
The difference is not germane to my point, either. Small businesses
are businesses; the business constituency explicitly allows small businesses, and,
if they actually participated in the BC, they would control it. That is, there already
is a representational home in the DNSO for from 80 to 90% of all domain name registrants
-- actually, more, because we do have the non-commercial constituency which allows
non-commercial domain name holders who are organizations of any size. That is, the
vast representational gap claimed by some is a pure fiction. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01079.html
Well then, are we proposing a constitiuency which will make up only
a very small percentage of internet users? Or shall we propose a small business &
individual constitiuency? You should be aware that I am having a real hard time not
jumping all over the issue of the veracity of these numbers, as prepared by NSI.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01084.html
Comments of the Office of Advocacy U.S. Small Business Administration On the WG-C
Interim Report Small businesses are a crucial element to the growth of the U.S. economy.
Their dependence on and involvement with the Internet is essential to its growth.
In 1998, there were 23 million small businesses in the United States, which represents
more than 99 percent of all employers in this country. Small businesses employ 52
percent of private workers and employ 38 percent of private workers in high-tech
occupations. Virtually all of the net new jobs in the United States were created
by small businesses. Small businesses use of the Internet is rapidly expanding. In
the past two years, the number of small businesses with access to the Internet has
doubled from 21.5 percent to 41.2 percent. Thirty-five percent of small businesses
maintain a Web site and one in three do business transactions through their site.
Additionally, according to statistics received from Network Solutions’ registrar
service (“NSI”), more than 80 percent of registrations through NSI in .com, .net,
and .org is by small businesses with less than 500 employees. Another 10 percent
of NSI’s registrations is by individuals for personal or business use. Based upon
the number of NSI’ s registrations in December 1999, small businesses have registered
more than 5 million domain names. Any policy that detrimentally affects the ability
of these small businesses to use the Internet would have a significant impact on
this nation’s economy and limit the effectiveness of the Internet as a tool of business
and commerce. The first paragraph above as well as the second offer compelling reasons
why small business as well as individuals, who comprise both business and consumer
interests, should be an integral if not a weighted force, in domain name governance.
The regrettable realities of corporate gamesmanship aside, its a logical proposition.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01094.html
Well now.....to quote the White Paper: "The Board of Directors for the new corporation
should be balanced to equitably represent the interests of IP number registries,
domain name registries, domain name registrars, the technical community, Internet
service providers (ISPs), and Internet users (commercial, not-for-profit, and individuals)
from around the world. Since these constituencies are international, we would expect
the board of directors to be broadly representative of the global Internet community.
" Internet users, Kent - NOT domain name registrants. Internet USERS. Individuals
described as a CONSTITUENCY. Every other category of entity in that paragraph has
been recognized, either in an SO or as a constituency. The White Paper categorizes
individuals with commercial interests and non-profit interests as a desirable constituency.
And no, I'm NOT confusing that with at large. So, let's remember first that we're
discussing a small portion of all affected people - those who register domain names.A
gap exists, nonetheless, and conservatively there are several million people in that
gap. As far as small business and the BC goes, you avoided my deliberate referrence
to it as "capture". I firmly believe that big business needs a place to articulate
it's collective concerns, and that small business needs the same. That wouldn't be
the same place. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01096.html
i agree with the idea of a SMALL business constituency, with some definition,
like "less than 100 employees". http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01153.html
We are proposing a constituency of Individual DN holders. This constituency
should be hospitable to small businesses that are largely owned by individuals. There
is no known effort underway to create a SBDNH constituency (small business DN holders),
but this could of course change. The DNSO needs to be ready and open for it.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01129.html
To give us some idea of how well existing constituencies are covering and attracting
people would it be possible for someone from each constituency (Netsol need not bother
from gTLD for obvious reasons) to post a quick summary of their constituency, perhaps
along the following lines: 1) No of members 2) No of votes cast by members at last
Names Council election (good indicator of how many members are active) 3) URL of
list of members if public 4) Is funding equal amount per member or relative to size
of members. What does it cost to join basically - is this a barrier to small businesses,
organisations, ISPs, Registrars? 5) Other germane details The reason this would be
useful is at present I would have no idea whether the small business constituency
proposed by some is a good idea or not. If it turns out that the business constituency
(as an example) consists of Microsoft, IBM and WorldCom then I would be inclined
to think we may have a problem. If it turns out (other extreme) that it has 15,000
members who get an equal vote and is not dominated by large businesses then I would
be less inclined to recommend adding on a small business constituency. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01130.html
However, this brings up an important point concerning the basic structural
nature of ICANN/DNSO. Clearly, the absolutely overwhelming majority of the 35 million
members of the ICC simply don't have time or interest to devote to participating
in ICANN. To *almost everyone*, domain names are in fact a microscopic specialized
policy concern, and they would much rather leave it to some organization to represent
them. It's not sensible, therefore, that ICANN/DNSO *directly* support a membership
of 35 million small businesses, or hundreds of millions of Internet users, for that
matter. The overhead simply doesn't justify it. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01151.html
Before we all get carried away in support of a constituency for small
business (SMEs) I think I should point out that the existing Business Constituency
(BC) is currently representing SMEs. The BC represents thousands of SMEs indirectly
via its association membership. The BC represents them directly with its explicit
category for SME membership - which charges a significantly reduced fee. SME representation
in the DNSO faces the same dilemma as SME representation in public policy. SME's
are typically too small to afford the time/money commitment to participate in non-core
activities. Representation via industry associations is the typical solution.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01156.html
I also like the idea of a small business constituency. As many small businesses are
in fact sole practitioners, I expect there'd be a large cross-over with an individuals
constituency, not only in terms of "size" of member, but concerns and interests.
That said, there are multiple forms of "commercial" constituencies (BC, IPC, etc.),
the multiplicity lending greater force to their singular agendas. I see no reason
why there should not be both a small business constituency (the very existence of
the U.S. Small Business Administration is explanation enough that small business
requires its own separate business platform), and an individual's constituency. As
with other constituencies, no doubt some members will find good reason to join both.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01162.html
If there was a small business constituency limited to businesses with under x employees
this may be a way of encouraging better small business participation. I imagine one
can look at the membership list of the BC and think hey wow I can't foot it with
MegaCorp A and B so I won't bother. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01187.html
Eric Menge and the US Small Business Administration were supposed to
be militating for a Small Business Constituency. Whatever happened to them? Perhaps
it's another case of "we left it up to the government". http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01222.html
CONSUMERS
CONSTITUENCY
On Tuesday, Nader called for the creation of
a "World Consumer Protection Organization," comparable to the United Nations' World
Intellectual Property Organization, only "more democratically run." Nader, at a National
Press Club event, said the proposed WCPO would focus on regulation of privacy, e-commerce,
intellectual property, antitrust and Internet governance -- areas he said affected
consumers directly. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00992.html
In its Memorandum of Understanding with ICANN, the U.S. Department of Commerce
committed itself to, among other things, promote "the technical management of the
DNS in a manner that reflects the global and functional diversity of Internet users
and their needs." How many of the following world consumer organizations have been
included in ICANN's Domain Name policy organization: World Consumer Protection Organization
Consumer Project on Technology Consumer Federation of America Consumer Alert National
Consumer Coalition American Counsel on Consumer Interests Consumers Union of the
U.S. Consumers INternational Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue Liga Acción del Consumidor
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Australian Consumers' Association
Consumer Affairs Council of the ACT Consumers Federation of Australia Bureau Européen
des Unions de Consommateurs Instituto Brasileiro de Politica e Direito do Consumidor
Consumers Association of Canada Organización de Consumidores y Usuarios de Chile
Consumer Council, Denmark Suomen Kuluttajaliitto Organisation Générale des Consommateurs,
France Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbraucherverbände Kentro Prostasias Katanaloton
Hong Kong Consumer Council National Association for Consumer Protection in Hungary
Indian Federation of Consumer Organisations Consumers Association of Ireland Comitato
Difesa Consumatori Consumers Union of Japan Federation of Malaysian Consumers Associations
Procuraduria Federal del Consumidor Association Marocaine des Consommateurs Nederlands
Consumentenbond Consumers Institute of New Zealand Consumers Federated Groups of
the Philippines Russian Consumer League Association of Slovak Consumers Consumers
Institute of South Africa Consumers Union of Korea Federación de Usuarios y Consumidores
Independientes de Espagna Sveriges Konsumentråd Consumers' Foundation, Chinese Taipei
Uganda Consumers Protection Association Ukrainian State Committee for Protection
of Consumer Rights National Consumer Council (UK) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00141.html
Others were more concerned with adding constituencies -- for individuals,
for domain name holders, for consumer advocacy groups, ... -- to remedy perceived
imbalances in the current structure. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01524.html
Second, it seems clear to me that there needs to be some formal representation
of what I will call a "consumer interest constituency" (to avoid the baggage associated
with various names that have come up, and to avoid any prejudices about "owner" vs
"holder" vs "user", "individual" vs "organization", and so on). Over the years there
have been multiple calls for such a thing, in various guises (some of them made by
me), and the need has not gone away. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01487.html
Respectfully I submit that if the clear results of this wg's analysis
is discarded, and there is the resulting lack of faith in how the internet is managed,
Mr. Nader may well obtain the support he needs to move this concept forward. It is
conceivable that the failure to share power may result in complete loss of power.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01178.html
So, as far as a "consumer interest constituency" is concerned, I have the following
concrete recommendations: 1) the Board should mandate that one be created; 2) that
the problems that have evidenced themselves require that it be created as a special
case, probably in a top-down and carefully controlled fashion; 3) that it not be
created until the issues of its interactions with other structures in the DNSO (GA,
BC, and NCC, at least) have been explored at some length. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01487.html
STLD
CONSTITUENCY
I'm interested in that proposition, but the "How"
has to be included, otherwise that will be left to those who resist these changes
and can dilute the value of the move by choosing the ISOC or other body already in
power to represent the individuals and some other group already there to take on
the task of representing the STLDs. So any proposal that states we recommend this
must also come with a process and a decision still needs to be made whether or not
Constituency is the answer to the proper structure in the first place. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00163.html
[STLD] specialized TLD constituency, Report requested by WG-Review Members
It has been first seconded ("I second your motion for the creation of a sTLD
constituency group. A review of the applicants at the recent board meeting shows
many special purpose TLDs that function somewhat differently than the typical definition
of at gTLD. I believe it is a topic worth pursuing"). http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00169.html
END
USERS CONSTITUENCY
Though users and registrants pay twice.
The registries and registrars pass their costs on to their customers, and then we
ask those same customers to pay up again if they want direct representation.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00374.html
Quite true. The argument that users are represented in ICANN by their service providers,
an argument I have heard expressed repeatedly to justify the exclusion of users from
the DNSO, is without weight because the interests of users, who pay but aren't paid,
are not the same as those who both pay and are paid, for the simple reason that users
have no one to pass their costs to downstream, except, if they are commercial users,
their customers, and even such cost-deferral is not part of computable Internet economics.
And of course non-commercial users, who remain 50% of traffic, have no one at all
to pass their costs along to. What ICANN has done by excluding end-users is set up
an artificial opposition - users versus providers - whereas until now users and providers
have for the most part been in a cooperative relationship. The antinomy users vs.
providers is a harbinger of no progress for the Internet and the world it is meant
to serve. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00380.html
> Is there general agreement that the users should have the largest
say on the governance of the internet?> The beauty of this simple fact is that
by implimenting it is a win win. The truth of the matter is that the large corporations,
registrars and governments will always be very powerful and maintain the upper hand.
But by leveling the playing field so at least you and I can get a vote and have an
imput along with our fellow netizens, we become empowered and the special interests
obtain more credibility and a forum in which to attempt to get us to buy their views(and
products). The more friendly the atmosphere the more it is used and everyone gets
a piece of a much bigger pie. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01016.html
As the thread of the discussion thus far in these postings has been
focused on defining that which constitutes a “stakeholder” and a “constituency”,
I would argue (on behalf of all those individuals that like myself are new to the
internet), that any domain name registrant who has tendered currency in order to
participate in the dream of the Internet is a legitimate stakeholder, and that ICANN
and the Names Council (by way of the Registries), have at their disposal the technological
means by which a valid registrant consensus may readily be obtained. In short,
you have in your WHOIS databases our email addresses. Registrants are the widest
possible set of Internet stakeholders. Ask us your questions. You will
receive our answers. Tally the results. You will have a consensus.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00439.html
Thus the issue of ICANN
and support organizations could focus on the business communities interests and another
unique council could be created to protect the individual's use of the Internet.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01279.html
Everyone who uses the Internet has a stake in domain names, since it is only possible
to send email, surf the Web, have a website, and do all the other things that the
Internet allows through a domain name, either someone else's or your own. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00623.html
I just spent an illuminating hour and a half reviewing ICANN's organizational
information and the registrars agreements and I am now certain that whatever restructuring
occurrs it must include your notion of the board having a clear majority derived
from users or customers. If someone were to suggest that the governance is not controlled
by registrars I would now be offended. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01005.html
Clearly, individuals who would like to have a domain but can't get one
for some reason are legitimate stakeholders in any discussion of domain policy. I
believe it is illegitimate for *any* constituency to make registration of a domain
a requirement for membership. In practice, of course, many who become involved in
domain name policy issues have registered at least one domain. But it should not
be a requirement for full participation in the DNSO. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00249.html
PUBLIC
POLICY CONSTITUENCY:
As a member of the public, it has become increasingly
clear to me that for a long time there has existed a sizable worldwide group of organizations
actively pursuing improvements at ICANN for the benefit of the general public, a
group that meets all the criteria for Constituency representation - a Public Policy
Group. These organizations have been responsible for spearheading legislative
actions, for ensuring a necessary level of congressional oversight, for thorough
research and analysis into matters that affect the global Internet community.
It is time for such a Constituency, a group committed to working hard to bring about
necessary
change; this will serve the best interests of the Corporation.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02850.html
In
principle I support this but what lines would you draw to define the borders of this
group?
Would it include individuals? Host masters? Small business?
Large
Corporations? Ultimately they all deserve input into 'public policy' and as such
would
all want to be in such a group. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02864.html
ELECTORAL
COLLEGE STRUCTURE
The electoral college is the system that resulted when two opposing
groups compromised in order to establish a functioning system. Some of the United
State's founders did not trust the masses to make educated decisions about who would
be the most qualified to lead the country. Others wanted to insure that the people
had the ultimate say in how officials were elected. And so they compromised! It also
insures that the votes of people living in less populated areas are as powerful as
those that live in the larger cities. There are some interesting comparisons between
what we are doing here and the establishment of the US Electoral College. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00977.html
REPRESENTATION
BY NATIONS
I prefer democracy. Considering the nature of the writings, in the message
to which I respond, would it not be better, to replace the special interest group
constituencies, with a council of representatives, one from each formally recognised
country, with each representative having equal voting power, whether the country
be Sierra Leone, or the USA? That would be interesting. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01323.html
That
would be the Government Advisory Council (GAC) if I understand you correctly. Whole
different kettle of fish, but such a group does exist. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01327.html
Perhaps
all nations could submit representations in five categories: (1) ccTLD registry/technical
(2) individuals/sole proprietors (3) corporate (4) education/non-profit (5) government?
How many countries at last count? All told, with a single representative in each
category, it will probably run some 1500?? or so (very rough estimate, would appreciate
exact figure...). From within each of the resulting 5 global constituencies, an equal
number of representatives will send an equal number of Chairs to Council/Board. Does
it ultimately come down to 5 equal votes at the top? or more? Whatever the case,
full accountability and responsibility at all levels must be ensured in the Constitution
and Laws of any new Organization intended to replace the existing framework.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01329.html
No, I meant a representative
of each country, elected by the Internet users of each country, not some government
appointed person with the sole purpose of representing only the interests of the
poltical party(ies) in power. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01356.html
So,
what I am proposing is that the constituencies that make sense are nations. We are
not going to get true IDNO representation from some nations, (e.g. China), so why
not form constituency groups around our current geopolitical system, and then foster
grassroots organizations that bring about new ideas. We can not change the world
in an instant. I again call for the disbandment of consensus as we define it, and
possibly the dissolution or remodeling of ICANN. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01490.html
I
agree that at least two constituencies ought to be added to the DNSO; namely, an
Individual Domain Name Holders Constituency and a Consumer Constituency. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01493.html
Only
a supported national structure within each country could handle such a question at
this point in time. This issue brings us back to the question of a viable and democratic
constituency structure. Something along the model of the U.N. must be seriously considered.
Earlier in our discussion I submitted the following questions: "Perhaps all nations
could submit representations in five categories: (1) ccTLD registry/technical (2)
individuals/sole proprietors (3) corporate (4) education/non-profit (5) government?
How many countries at last count? All told, with a single representative in each
category, it will probably run some 1500?? or so (very rough estimate, would appreciate
exact figure...). From within each of the resulting 5 global constituencies, an equal
number of representatives will send an equal number of Chairs to Council/Board. Does
it ultimately come down to 5 equal votes at the top? or more?" These national constituencies
would have their own translators from the pooling of resources (according to...,
the ccTLDs already get the goods for free). http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01593.html
Actually
your Federal concept has agreat deal of merit. Suppose we make our constituencies
like the U.S.A. states, two senators from each state, any territory can petition
to be a state.(constituency Group) This forms a senate.(DNSO) Then based upon mere
population we have popular elections for the House (GA). Wait a second, isn't that
what we are proposing. Something sure looks, smells and acts like a governing body.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02275.html
NAME HOLDERS CONSTITUENCY
I
will be offline for a few days, but after that I would like to re-visit and elaborate
on my original proposal (see list of dec 30, 2000) for a re-division of the voting
power of the existing constituencies on the NC and the creation of a big Name Holders
Constituency (NHC) that would hold 9 seats and consist of the Biz.Name Holders, the
Non Commercial Name Holders and the Individual Name Holders. The other constituencies
together should also hold 9 seats and the Chair should hold the balance. I would
at least like to see this proposal included in the report. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02188.html
You
may have seen my proposal for a "super" DN holder constituency, made up of the Business-constituency,
the Individual DN Holders' constituency and the NCDNHC (and having 9 seats on the
NC). http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02600.html
OTHER CONSTITUENCIES
Agreed. And how about creating a new constituency for true non-commercial
domain name holders, since the current NCDNHC is controlled by ISOC? At present,
there is no constituency in which an honest-to-god non-commercial domain name holder,
whether individual or organization, can function openly and effectively. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00079.html
CONCERNS
ABOUT THE ccTLD CONSTITUENCY
Yes, we (ccTLD) are studying possible
alternatives in our relationship with ICANN. Also, we feel tha ccTLD participation
potentially lends geat credibility to ICANN in terms of validating "International
Status", and should help the ICANN goal of getting control of the root deligated
from US Dept of Commerce. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00157.html
Since
ccTLD constituency is in the DNSO structure at this juncture, it might be more productive
to discuss bigger picture for WG-Review's recommendation to the Names Council. 1.
[DNSO Structure Discussion] ccTLD should be in the DNSO? 2. If not, what could be
the potential model 3. [NET Sovereignty] If so, what kind of relations should there
be between ccTLD and ICANN 4. What kind of relations among ccTLD vs ICANN vs GAC
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01672.html
[DNSO Structure Discussion]
ccTLD should be in the DNSO? If not, what could be the potential model? I think these
would legitimately fall in the constituencies discussion, and would hope that we
have a lot of input from ccTLD folks. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01731.html
Domain
Name System General Assembly (DNSGA) http://www.dnsga.org Maybe the international
Internet community, and more specifically ccTLD representatives, need to participate
in a new organization wholly separate from ICANN? http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01739.html
From
what I can gather, you established DNSGA less than six months ago. Please correct
me if I am mistaken. Since then, you say you have received "overwhelming support
from representatives of country-code top-level domain registries (ccTLDs) and from
the international Internet community." If so, clearly DNSO is not delivering all
that the ccTLDs want and I wonder what role the DNSGA is fulfilling exactly that
cannot be matched by ICANN. Here are my questions:- In relation to constituencies:-
1.) What would be the advantages for ccTLDs to leave DNSO and join an organization
independently of ICANN ? 2.) What kind of relations do you anticipate between DNSGA
and ICANN? In relation to procedure:- 3.) Do you anticipate difficulties with the
multi-lingual aspects of a growing international organization? 4.) How does the process
by which you function and create policies etc. differ from the DNSO/ ICANN?
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01741.html
The problem I see here
is that ccTLD representatives and their constituency members believe that the DNSO
or any other ICANN affiliated organization will not act in the best interest of the
international Internet community and ccTLDs constituency concerns. I believe that
ICANN has not acted in the best interest of the international Internet community
and ccTLDs and this has caused ccTLD representatives to not trust the DNSO and ICANN
process. Let's be real and honest here. If you have participated in these processes,
can you blame them? I would like to believe that the DNSO and ICANN can do more for
the international Internet community and ccTLDs constituency concerns than just give
them a forum to voice there concerns. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01742.html
A
clarification- Even though the ccTLD already has its own organization, our objective
is to work within and reform the ICANN process. That is why we (some of us, anyway,
both directly and within our organization) are participating in the WG-Review process.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01774.html
I believe that it is
time for real international constituency representation and how can the international
Internet community trust ICANN or its supporting organizations? Answers to
your questions in short order below: >In relation to constituencies:-
>1.)
What would be the advantages for ccTLDs to leave DNSO and join an
>organization
independently of ICANN ?
Answer: I believe that an organization independent
of ICANN would be a more productive one than one directly affiliated with ICANN.
This is because it is hard to trust a dog that has bitten a hand that feeds it.
2.) What kind of relations do you anticipate between DNSGA and ICANN?
Answer:
The DNSGA plans to do what it can to convince ICANN and the United States of the
concerns and productive objectives of the international Internet community.
>In relation to procedure:-
>3.) Do you anticipate difficulties with the multi-lingual
aspects of a
>growing international organization?
Answer: No. >4.)
How does the process by which you function and create policies etc.
>differ from
the DNSO/ ICANN? Answer: The DNSGA is a new organization and its policy
making processes and functions are still under development. The DNSGA will
rely on international constituency participation and its membership for direction.
The DNSGA will accept contributions to fund DNSGA efforts. This will in part
allow compensation for DNSGA administration and lawyers to effectively communicate
to ICANN and the US the concerns and productive objectives of the international Internet
community. Will anything less than this work? http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01743.html
[DNSO
Structure Discussion] ccTLD should be in the DNSO? I think that the ccTLDs should
both be a constituency within DNSO as they have a huge interest in domain name policy
but also be a Supporting Organisation of ICANN with direct appointment of Board Members
in recognition of vital role in global recognition of ICANN, and the large amount
they fund it. It is interesting that DNSO/ICANN has so far only made policy relating
to gTLDs. A key question will be whether ICANN will attempt to make global policy
for ccTLDS (personally a silly thing to do and quite possibly impossible to implement).
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01946.html
That is interesting
idea- and one which we have not thought about before within the ccTLD- we were kind
of looking at it as one or the other (inside DNSO vs: separate) I'm going to put
that idea on the ccTLD list and see what our constituent's thoughts are...
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01948.html
There is no requirement
for the disassembling of the existing constituencies. A term often used is grand
fathering. But I do see great potential for the establishment of a supporting constituency
of the users/individuals of domains within ccTLDs, just as we are recommending a
IDNH/O constituency. Of course this may dilute the power base of the current ccTLD
constituency. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02263.html
Clearly, individuals who would like to have a domain but can't get one
for some reason are legitimate stakeholders in any discussion of domain policy. I
believe it is illegitimate for *any* constituency to make registration of a domain
a requirement for membership. In practice, of course, many who become involved in
domain name policy issues have registered at least one domain. But it should not
be a requirement for full participation in the DNSO. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00249.html
FUNDING
I would like to have a system in which a part of domain registration
revenues received by ICANN be dedicated to the DNSO functioning. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00734.html
f) The Relations between Funding and Rights to Say This issue sounds
hot potato which was not directly mentioned in the questionaire and was not still
included specific issues of WG members' own list. However, this is going to be undetachable
issue whenever Names Council discusses DNSO Budget, ICANN Budget. Therefore, it would
be also valuable for WG members to come up with workable financial solution after
their first issue-cracking stage. Regarding its methodolgy in Budget process, the
necessity of more planned, more transparent and more detailed document is well-described
in registrar.com's position paper.[Appendix 8] http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01332.html
Now, if anybody's been pushed to pay for the circus as it's been produced
to-date, it's the ccTLDs, and I am in complete sympathy with their position in this
regard. Each of them has their own governmnet structures and strictures to deal with...
everybody's asking them to produce money from all sides. So, I'm proposing that just
*before* the TM constituency *is* dissolved, it should be billed for time `served'.
After all, just think of how much crap the registries and ccTLD registrars had to
put up with from the ONE constituency that did the most talking till now, and never
reached into its own pocket (not publicly anyway) to pay its way! http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01313.html
let me try to tackle this one real quick ... given the materiality of
the contributions requested, this seems to me and many others like simple whining!!
educational institutions, non-profit foundations etc. are all funded in order to
make them viable & effective. for almost 2 years now we keep getting what seems to
be "lame" excuses about the ability of this constituancy to come up with $5000. it
just isnt going to fly that far... in fact it just doesnt make sense !! get some
of these heterogeneous organizations you talk about here to contribute. it certainly
is a "cause & an advocacy" worth fostering .. isn't it ? http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00492.html
From where I sit the notion of "pay to play" is quite troubling, being
nothing more than a hidden poll tax. As pointed out, the business interests (who
can easily pay the fees to participate) recoup those fees from the users of the net
who thus end up paying twice. There is a legitimate question of how one pays
for DNSO activities. (My own personal belief is that the DNSO ought to be funded
out of the domain registration revenues system received by ICANN. But a pre-condition
to that would be the re-establishment of the DNSO as a well-functioning policy organ.)
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00727.html
Among the causes of the NC's under-performance are: > > **The DNSO has significantly
less resources than its needs to do its job. > No organization of the breadth and
complexity of the DNSO and the NC could > hope to perform successfully without dedicated,
professional support. The > DNSO has operated almost entirely on volunteer efforts
and a line of > credit/donation extended to it from AFNIC. This under-funding distorts
> nearly everything about the DNSO. Most importantly, it ensures that the > pure
level of competence of its work is jeopardized. A bad situation has > been made worse
by the casual manner in which DNSO dues are sometimes > treated by some Constituencies,
who pay their dues partially, late, or not > at all. (Note that Constituency members
probably pay 10 to 100 times more > in pure travel expenses to attend ICANN meetings
than they do in DNSO dues!) > http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01494.html
As far as fiscal health is concerned, ICANN couldn't have botched that
job worse, if they had tried. You don't simply walk up to a business, hand them an
invoice, and expect them to pay (exactly what ICANN did to the ccTLDs). You have
to convince them that the are getting some benefit from your presence. Where is the
value-add? The DNSO is in exactly the same boat. Since the only ones seeing any benefit,
thus far, are the TM&IP interests, then they should be sent the bill. I'm certainly
NOT a WIPO fan, but if they are getting the benefit, where's their money? http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01158.html
Please, try to keep your facts straight. The non-commercial constituency
has provided $4000 of the $5000 requested, which is, as I understand, about $4000
more than the ISP constituency. But fundamentally I agree - we do have to pony up,
and the struggle of some constituencies to do so is one of the problems that needs
to go onto the bill of particulars. It is one of the problems of the DNSO. Now try
to understand this problem in a deeper, less accusatory way. You represent an industry
organization with a direct, simple, financial interest in domain name registration.
All of their business is domain names. Of course it's no problem to get them to provide
.001 percent of their revenues to support the cartel--er, ah....self-regulatory agency.
We represent a group of organizations that have almost nothing in common save their
non-commercial nature, who make no money on domain name registrations, and if you
asked the executives of these organizations about domain name policy, it would be
off their radar screen unless some disaster happened, such as being threatened with
the loss of a domain name. (Try marching into a faculty senate meeting and telling
a university with 124 curriculum changes, 200 program budgets to approve and hundreds
of other items related to their core mission that they should expend a significant
amount of staff time or money on the formulation of domain name policy. It isn't
easy.) Is it really so difficult for you to understand that distinction? I would
hope that as chair of the Names Council, you would try to rise above partisan, narrow
constituency perspectives and look at the bigger picture. The DNSO leadership's constant
refusal to do so is one of the reasons we're here. It would be enlightened self-interest
on your part to stop viewing us as troublemakers and realize that the DNSO needs
critical input and participation from civil society to achieve legitimacy.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00500.html
Focusing on the consumer perspective would be nice and probably forward thinking.
The problem that has been discussed repeatedly in this WG is which "consumers" carry
more weight and have a more vested interest in these decisions. As an individual
and a small business my concerns usually match up, however if you look at those making
a "living off the internet" they appear to want different results than someone like
me. So balancing the needs of funding with the desire to have as many people
participate as possible becomes a fundamental point in governing from the ground
up. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00738.html
This concept definately should be included in any reccomendation, probably as 2 or
3 concepts so that the funding baby does not get thrown out with the constituency
bathwater. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01871.html
We need to devise some way to fairly and equitably pay for the cost of what we are
doing. And we need more money than that- for outreach, to advertise, stimulate, and
encourage more participation by the stakeholders whos voices we never hear.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00751.html
At the last teleconference meeting of the Names Council, the motion was introduced
to require any new constituency to immediately share equally in the financial obligations
of the DNSO. The motion itself did not meet with any opposition. I have
concerns about this top-down form of financial gerrymandering. I can envision
a number of potential constituency groups, such as consumer protection organizations,
child protection groups, independent domain name holders, etc., who will be inordinately
challenged to raise the funds required solely to be heard in this forum, especially
as future budgets will assuredly increase dramatically to meet coming demands.
While future groups such as a labor union constituency or a small business constituency
may be able to underwrite such expenses, I have tremendous misgivings about the ability
of other future constituencies to raise such funding, thereby becoming disenfranchised.
The funding mechanism as envisioned by the Names Council, in my humble opinion, seems
to violate the ICANN by-laws that state, “Each Constituency shall self-organize,
and shall determine its own criteria for participation.” If constituencies
are to be part of the future model, over the opposition of those who like myself
would prefer to see the abolition of the constituency structure, then let us at least
act in the spirit of inclusiveness, and allow for those groups with limited resources
to better participate. Another budgetary model should be proposed.http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02186.html
Just one question: Doesn't WIPO contribute here? Seems to me they've
had their fair share of input to date... shouldn't they be shouldering some of the
costs? Aren't the Intellectual Property people a represented constituency within
the DNSO? http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00766.html
Of course WIPO should contribute! As should ALL represented groups.
Also, there is a separate set of contributions- the larger one is to ICANN, and a
smaller one is DNSO contributions. All constituencies in the DNSO are asked to contribute
to DNSO costs- as determined by the NC budget comittee- However some of the constituencies
don't pay anything, or they pay less than their share, or they pay late- and there
is no formal mechanism for financing webcasts, servers, technicians, scribes, etc.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00774.html
Transparency in the budget process would lend additional credibility to the DNSO,
as well as make future voluntary contributions to the budget more likely. Constituencies
would be more enthusiastic about their involvement if they had a clearer idea how
dues were being allocated. Currently, budget information is posted within the minutes
of NC meetings and teleconferences, as seen in the Scribe's Notes from the NC meeting
on November 14, 2000 in Los Angeles (http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20001114.NCmdr-minutes.html).
While the information presented in such reports is important, it does not contain
sufficient detail nor does it allow an outside reader to know what is the final or
formal budget of the DNSO. A separate, detailed report would allow constituency members
and other interested parties to gain a better understanding of the DNSO's work. To
achieve these objectives, register.com would like to recommend that: A. A standing
format be developed for reporting DNSO budget information, including sources of income,
itemized expenses, and other relevant information. B. This information be presented
in an accessible format on the DNSO website. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00911.html
Is there some way you can agree to "pay to play" at least to fund >
the infrastructure necessary to maintain the web and list serves, > and a reasonable
amount of scribes for documenting all of this? How about this? Domain name registries
in open gTLDs accept registration fees from domain name registrants or registrars.
ICANN takes some small percentage of these fees to fund its operations. Registries,
registrars, and domain name registrants reach consensus on the amount of the money
that ICANN can collect and the amount of money that the registries can pass on to
their customers (registrars or registrants). http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00949.html
If ICANN is to be independent, and, if ICANN incurs expenses, then,
it appears that ICANN must be self-funding. I believe that the appropriate way to
achieve that, is a fixed tax on all domain name registrations - both gTLD, and, ccTLD,
for example, a tax of (if the USA currency is to be the currency of ICANN :( ), 1USD
per year, on each registered domain name, charged to the domain name registrant,
by the domain name registrar, and, paid to ICANN, by the domian name registrar. The
amount that I have mentioned, is arbitrary, and, would need to be modified according
to the requirements to be funded. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00961.html
One can argue that name holders ultimately pay 100% of the ICANN Budget
because all the registry and registrar fees come from name holders. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00321.html
As has already been pointed out by myself and others, Name Holders
ARE the ones providing the FUNDS! Name Holders are the ones buying DOMAINS! I think
that constituency has already paid its fair share. What about WIPO and certain others?
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00392.html
Should we sometime workout a definition of what is a domain name we will discover
that you cannot "tax" many forms of domain names. But you certalinly can charge for
an IP address. Hopefully this is the solution for the ICANN. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00979.html
There is a problem of funding of the common resources. The basis is
the IP address. Let pci on $ per annum and address. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00982.html
Excellent, personally another $2 or $3 per registration for this purpose
is not a hardship and that alone is more funding than is currently required by all
parties. That coupled with the TM Constituency becoming part of the Business Constituency
and adding an IDNH Constituency would go far toward leveling the playing field and
the budget being provided in this way would disallow the argument they make of who
would be funding it. Since we are ALREADY the ones funding it through proxy anyway,
this would just clarify to them where the money has always been coming from in the
first place. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01019.html
The entire funding can come directly out of domain registrations and
that model would more than pay the current budget. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01020.html
We have to discuss the funding of the DNSO. IMHO the activities of the
DNSO should be on the ICANN budget. The DNSO is an SO consulting for the ICANN. Usually
a consultant is not paying it client, it is the othe way around. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01023.html
I even like the concept of paying to play in the business world. But
in every business community that I work within...if only the "Big" guys play, eventually
everything falls apart. I could hypothesize on why this happens but sooner or later
I think it gets down to the "Big" guys are outnumbered by the little guys. So the
best bet for the "Big" guys is to get the little guys on their side. And that includes
defining fair play, fair and clear rules, a clear understanding on how to participate,
and thoughtful, maybe even visionary planning. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01025.html
This idea was actually suggested and bandied about at one of the formative
meetings in 1998. The idea was that ICANN would take $1 of the registration fee and
provide, in return, membership in ICANN and an info packet to each domain name registrant.
Not a bad idea at all, except that the Board's real interest was in the $1/registrant
and, when that was quashed by Congress, they gave up the membership part as being
a negative with no gain for them. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01040.html
This concept definately should be included in any reccomendation, probably
as 2 or 3 concepts so that the funding baby does not get thrown out with the constituency
bathwater. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01047.html
RESPONSE
TO THE TASK FORCE QUESTIONNAIRE
Constituencies: · Are the constituencies
a correct division? Are all DNSO interests adequately represented in the existing
constituency groups? Do the current divisions aggregate individuals or entities with
closely aligned interests and permit the development of focused positions? · Should
the constituencies be reformulated by combining user constituencies? By combining
provider constituencies? In some other way? · Is it up to each constituency to define
its relationship with NC representatives or should the DNSO/ICANN have some minimal
mandatory requirements for all? · What happens if an elected NC rep does not attend
NC meetings, ignores constituency members? Is this up to the constituency to address,
or should it be brought to the attention of the NC? · Are the constituencies fulfilling
their role as open and transparent channels of dialogue and discussion toward the
development of community consensus? Do they allow effective development of collective
positions of those with similar interests? Does this process promote the development
of overall community consensus? · Does the current constituency division minimize
the effectiveness of the DNSO and NC? · Are the constituencies adequately representing
the intended members? Or are there important parts of the Internet Community that
may need better representation? · Should there be a constituency for individuals,
and if so, how should its membership be constituted? · How do you ensure that individuals
who choose to form an individual constituency represent the vast interests of individuals
? · No constituencies have been added since the original seven constituencies were
recognized (provisionally) in May 1999. What should be the ongoing process for assessing
whether the constituencies serving the goal of providing appropriate forums for affected
stakeholder groups? http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00100.html
It is odd that the Names Council Review Task Force Questionnaire was
not circulated on the WG-review list. >There's nothing surprising in it, really,
when you consider that the so-called DNSO Secretary, who does all the DNSO's communications
(see above), was a member of the IAHC and has been part of CORE since it began. BTW,
so is the Chair of the GA. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00619.html
Constituencies: ·a) Are the constituencies a correct division? - Please
list these for the benefit of At Large/ GA members of this list may not know what
are the current constituency divisions. b) Are all DNSO interests adequately represented
in the existing constituency groups? - The absence of a constituency in the DNSO
representing the owners or registrants of individual domain names is a persistent
area of concern for many participants in ICANN and since the DNSO has a distinct
role within ICANN, the At-Large membership is not a substitute for direct representation
within the DNSO. c) Do the current divisions aggregate individuals or entities with
closely aligned interests and permit the development of focused positions? ·e) Should
the constituencies be reformulated by combining user constituencies? By combining
provider constituencies? In some other way? - see above - a new constituency in the
DNSO is needed to represent the owners or registrants of individual domain names.
· f) Is it up to each constituency to define its relationship with NC representatives
or should the DNSO/ICANN have some minimal mandatory requirements for all? - DNSO
must put all constituencies on the same terms. If not, there will be accusations
by members of disenfranchisement. · g) What happens if an elected NC rep does not
attend NC meetings, ignores constituency members? Is this up to the constituency
to address, or should it be brought to the attention of the NC? - It is not NC's
role to sit in judgement on the merits of contributions by democratically elected
reps. Members are responsible for ensuring their reps perform tasks they were elected
to carry out. ·h) Are the constituencies fulfilling their role as open and transparent
channels of dialogue and discussion toward the development of community consensus?
- i) Do they allow effective development of collective positions of those with similar
interests? Does this process promote the development of overall community consensus?
- - if the community as a whole is not properly represented by current constituencies,
how can they promote overall community consensus? ·j) Does the current constituency
division minimize the effectiveness of the DNSO and NC? - absolutely, - if the community
as a whole is not properly represented by current constituencies, not only effectiveness
is compromised, but also credibility. ·k) Are the constituencies adequately representing
the intended members? Or are there important parts of the Internet Community that
may need better representation? - - see above - add a new constituency in the DNSO
representing the owners or registrants of individual domain names. · l) Should there
be a constituency for individuals, and if so, how should its membership be constituted?
- one man one vote electing one representative per 100,000 voters? (If the constituency
comprises 1 million, there would be 10 representatives) m) How do you ensure that
individuals who choose to form an individual constituency represent the vast interests
of individuals ? - you can't. (You can take a horse to water, but you can't make
it drink.) Many people chose not to vote in elections and there is no way of knowing
whether those that do vote also represent the interests of individuals that don't
vote. This system would not discriminate against any individual by age, race, nationality
or gender, except perhaps children, who (I include in the interests of accuracy),
also own domain names...:-) ·n) No constituencies have been added since the original
seven constituencies were recognized (provisionally) in May 1999. What should be
the ongoing process for assessing whether the constituencies serving the goal of
providing appropriate forums for affected stakeholder groups? - I propose an annual
review. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00114.html
I submit that only in the case of the gTLD registry constuency can
we actually make that claim: there are substantial number of registrars that don't
participate in registrar constituency; there are substantial numbers of ccTLDs that
don't participate in the ccTLD constituency, and of course the other constituencies
the situation is even more obvious -- there are enormous gaps between the "stakeholder
communities" and the "constituencies". In fact, the constituencies are very
heterogenous, and cover a very broad range of interests. So, the statement "there
is no way to compute how much representation each of the relevant stakeholder communities
*in fact* has on the NC, under the current system" is quite literally correct.
To review: we agree that (in your words) "there is no way to compute how much representation
each of the relevant stakeholder communities *ought to* have on the NC". Given that,
then, there is obviously no way that we can determine appropriate representation
for different stakeholders. In fact, not only can we not compute how much representation
the relevant stakeholders should have, we don't even know for sure who the relevant
stakeholders are. It therefore follows that the idea that the DNSO should be some
kind of representative governing body is fatally flawed from the very beginning.
It isn't a representative body, and it *can't* be. Thus the admonition in the white
paper that ICANN should be "representative" can not be taken to mean that ICANN has
to duplicate the processes and structures of representative government, and no one
who understands the issues thinks it should. "Representative" should be understood
more in the sense of "representative sample" rather than "elected representative".
If there were an individuals constituency, for example, things would not be significantly
different -- the balance of the votes might shift a little bit, but nothing at all
dramatic. The problems with the current system are NOT that it is unrepresentative.
The problems are much more mundane -- the current system doesn't accomplish WORK.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00389.html
Any shift would be progress and the current constituencies are not genuinely different.
TM holders as one thing and businesses as another and ISPs as another and Registrars
as another are not genuinely different when many fit into the "All of the Above"
Constituency. I have a quote for you here too. it describes our current system
and leadership. it's by someone whose philosophy they seem to have adopted. "The
people who vote decide nothing, the people who count the vote decide everything."
~ Joseph Stalin http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00412.html
No, its my understanding and my observation that the Business constituency
and the TM constituency are controlled by essentially the same interests. Interests
that have done a good job stepping on small business persons lately, at least where
I live. There are more Davids than Goliaths, but the Goliaths have most of the power
in ICANN. An individuals constituency will help to even the score. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01121.html
REACTION
TO THE DNSO REVIEW TASK FORCE REPORT
Preliminary Reports -
3. Constituencies and 4. GA Total number of voters: 19 The WG should approve this
report 13 The WG should not approve this report 1 Don't know 5 Comments: · Not enough
time to debate the issues · I would prefer a stronger mandate in the report · Our
time is being significantly whittled away with these "preliminary" reports. So lets
stop dicking around and actually get some concrete ideas onto the floor to vote on.
BTW the whole of this structure looks like the Fed's alphabet soup. Enough.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02131.html
Preliminary Report - 11. IDNH Total number of voters: 21 The WG should approve this
report 17 The WG should not approve this report 1 Don't know 3 Comments: · Preventing
an individuals voice is a rights violation · Since a few people may hold many domain
names, I wonder how such a constituency could operate with full representation of
"small" holders' interests. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02131.html
RTF Report: "Discussions within the General Assembly, the Working
Group, and other forums on the question of a constituency for individual domain name
holders reflect that while not all agree with the need for it, there is sufficient
support to explore its establishment. If the constituency is added, a procedure is
needed to ensure that it occurs in a transparent manner, is representative of its
charter, and that the role of the General Assembly, Non-Commercial Constituency,
and the At Large members is looked at in relation to the individual constituency.
If established, it should be carefully distinguished from the non-commercial, which
should represent non-commercial interests, such as educational institutions, libraries,
non-profits etc. per its mandate." Until a substantive warrant is produced, I remain
adamant in rejecting *any* so-called "report" which can be construed as involving/implying
WG input, specifically in this matter. I think anybody who reads this statement,
and who was not aware of the facts, could easily conclude that the WG supported such
a statement. This is a flagrant misrepresentation of the facts. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02226.html
Why is this WG not clarifying statements made in the RTF Report with
respect to its position on Constituencies (and as of tomorrow, the General Assembly)
for posting to the public comment forum? Concerns have been expressed by members
about political spin applied by Ms Swinehart to the RTF preliminary Report with respect
to this WGs input.
NC should pay attention to the poll result done by WG Review
that 97 %
people responded YES. [Appendix 1] Some including one of At-Large Board
Director,
Karl Auerbach recommend to eliminate "Constituency" structure
itself, which has
not been working out in the DNSO.[Appendix 4] http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02252.html
Conclusion: Eleven documents or authors are identified as responses
within the task force report. Some of these are referenced within the WG-Review preliminary
report submitted by Ms Park, which included 24 documents as appendices. An analysis
of these documents is beyond the scope of this comment, but it should be abundantly
clear that WG-Review members contributed the bulk of material referenced by the task
force, and did so in a three week period that included Christmas and New Year holidays.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02293.html
I beg to differ. this is another butt-covering exercise, intended to elicit even
more input which will then be selectively "processed" for further misrepresentation.
This WG must disassociate itself from Ms Swineheart's "reports" and if need be, from
Ms. Swineheart herself. Her agenda is clear. Please read Greg Burton's painfully
reconstructed Backround of the DNSO review Process. If that doesn't make things patently
clear... I am afraid nothing will. Read it (Parts 1 & 2) and then comment on Ms.
Swineheart and her activities to-date. Anyhow, I have put forward a motion to vote
for WG disassociation from the "report" drafted by Ms. Swineheart. A vote which should
include a list of those who voted. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02351.html
Recommendation: By Ms. Swinehart "to establish a study to identify specific
core issues that need to be addressed in order to determine if and how to establish
an individual domain name holders constituency." This working group and the review
task force basically concluded that a IDNH's constituency should be formed. The above
language is how to "kill a bill in committee". It takes our recommendation and puts
it into an ill defined study to find what needs to be addressed, in order to move
forward to an "if and how" of establishing what every review group or committee has
already concluded is needed, yesterday. Following this recommendation will kill an
IDNH constituency for at least, 18 months. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02783.html
This working group and the review task force basically concluded that
a >IDNH's constituency should be formed. The figures are consistently over 75% in
favor of it (not counting abstentions) at two physical GA meetings (Yokohama and
Marina Del Rey) and in three polls done in the WG here. The original plan, as far
as I can tell from the tapes of Yokohama, was for the task force and wg to combine
the question of an individual constituency and DNSO review. In other words, seven
months ago the BoD was told that the review task force was going to do what it's
now recommending be done by someone else, later. In Marina Del Rey the motion was
made and passed during the GA meeting to create a WG in order to create that constituency.
A motion was made and passed here to do the same thing. Nothing has happened, or
I now believe will happen, until Melbourne at the earliest, and only if the BoD does
something directly. Up until yesterday, I still had some hope that the NC would create
the WG to deal with the issue, as they promised the Board in Yokohama. I no longer
believe that they will, despite the best wishes and efforts for that outcome by some
of the NC members. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02799.html
Thus it appears that of the six multi-member constituencies, only one
produced a report as a constituency, and that one contains no information about the
number of participants or the process used to produce it. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02389.html
We can only hope that future task forces also will issue such well-considered
single-author recommendations... after all, why implement any changes when one only
needs to implement more studies about everything? http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02846.html
is it my lack of English understanding or is there a suggestion by the
Task Force for anything else than a further study? I understand why they were in
such a hurry. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02844.html
I am, none the less, very disappointed in the report. I know that many
of you who've been participating could have been putting the time to very productive
use elsewhere. I still feel that we need to find ways to make ICANN fulfill it's
greater mission, which is (as I understand it) to phase internet control out of USG
control into international autonomous being. No small feat. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02848.html
EDITOR'S
PERSONAL REMARKS
The participants in this Review Working Group understand that
consensus is a process, a process which is now being threatened by the very group
charged with managing such consensus. The Group understands that repeated efforts
have been made by members of the Names Council to impede our work, to prematurely
terminate the life of this Working Group, and to grossly distort our findings through
an irresponsible Task Force Report. As such, the claim will not be made
that the above-cited chronicle of comments represents consensus, only that certain
conclusions are self-evident, and that consensus on remaining issues would be possible
were we to be given the opportunity to complete our efforts as per the Terms of Reference
first provided by our Chair. We require an additional three months to
arrive at consensus formulations. We hope the Board finds our preliminary observations
to be of sufficient value to warrant a decision mandating our continued efforts.