The IDNO has petitioned the Board on 23 April 1999 to approve the admission to the
DNSO of an Individual Domain Name Holders' constituency in principle.
This is
now nearly 2 years ago and no policy response has been received, except by way of
an unofficial rejection letter by Esther Dyson and through the postings in public
fora by Dave Crocker ("the IDNO is not even on the Board's radar screen") and Kent
Crispin, who has revealed that the Board lost it's initial inclination to consider
an IDNO constituency when it was told that it has become a magnet for disgruntled
individuals with an axe to grind, or an "anti-ICANN constituency". There is no
question that being rebuffed without given reasons increases the levels of frustration,
bitterness and cynicism of those who try to participate in good faith.
The stonewalling
is the cause of anti-ICANN feelings in the constituency and it has to be recognized
as such.
To reverse cause and effect is not a basis for good policy.
Personally,
I am on the point of giving up on ICANN.
Perhaps this is better for the IDNO.
Attempting
to participate in ICANN via this "bottom-up" constituency formation, has been very
costly for me in personal terms.
But as soon as the Board will approve the addition
of an Individuals constituency to the DNSO, a great deal of frustration will melt
away and the members of this constituency will be motivated again to work in a positive
and constructive way to legitimize the DNSO as a representative body of DNS stakeholders.
The
decision is up to the Board and the Board alone.
The Names Council would do well
to let its Review task force read and summarize the Report on the Constituencies
that has come from the WG (posted here in this forum) and heed the recommendation
of the WG-Review to create a WG specifically dedicated to the formation details of
an IDNHC.
Joop Teernstra LL.M.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO
www.idno.org