To Members of the Board,In the Green Paper, four principles to guide the evolution
of the
domain name system were set out: stability, competition, private
bottom-up
coordination and representation. In the White Paper,
specific reference is made
to domain name holders on
numerous occasions, so clearly they are a factor in
discussions.
In particular, Section 9 of the White paper, Competition
Concerns,
states:-
"Entities and individuals would need to be able to participate by
expressing
a position and its basis, having that position
considered, and appealing if adversely
affected".
http://www.icann.org/general/white-paper-05jun98.htm.
Currently, individual
domain name holders constitute a
functional group within the GA, but interested
persons have
neither a mechanism for appeal, nor any way to voice their
concerns
at a decision making level alongside other special
interest groups.
UDRP is
one example where individual freedom is being
minimized and in turn, the interests
of all individuals are being
adversely affected.
There are a number of DNSO
operational failures that must be
acknowledged and addressed by both the Board
and the NC if
representation for disenfranchised individual domain name
holders
is to improve.
These include:-
Issue 1:
The application process for the addition
of new Constituencies
is not clearly defined, creating a barrier to entry, limiting
the ability
to succeed of those willing to give serious attention to a
proposal.
The
status quo:
Progress is being hampered by disagreements as to what
would constitute
an appropriate process to add new
Constituencies.
Recommendation:
WG-Review
has outlined a model in its Constituency Report.
This is commended to the Board
as an appropriate example to
follow. The proposal makes provision for a framework
that would
be used for the addition of new Constituencies within the
existing
structure of DNSO at this time, with particular reference
to individual domain
name holders.
Issue 2:
According to Section (insert) of the ByLaws, "If
the NC
undertakes consideration of a domain name topic, or if a
Constituency
so requests, the NC shall designate one or more
research or drafting committees,
or working groups of the GA, as
appropriate to evaluate the topic, and shall
set a time frame for
the report of such committee or working group."
Status
Quo:
This process is not being instigated by the NC in a timely
fashion. WG-Review
being one example. The NC has not
designated work to committees or working groups
drawn from
the GA to address a number of issues that have arisen,
including
the call for an individuals constituency.
The primary mission of members of the
GA is to participate in
research and drafting committees and working groups.
This
valuable resource is freely available yet underutilized.
Recommendation:
Require
the NC to foster more inclusive participation by the GA.
Issue 3:
Inadequate
and unfairly restricted access to DNSO mailing list
servers and other communications
tools/systems which allow
easy and effective participation in the DNSO for all
interested and
useful parties and groups.
Cause:
Unknown.
Recommendation:
Allocation
of ICANN/DNSO resources to provide ongoing ML
servers and/ or forum capability
for new WGs and committees. A
minimum of 6 should be made available immediately.
Issue
4:
Ongoing DNSO oversight. The DNSO Review process is more
than just the short-term
diagnosis of a problem. The process
also involves efforts at proposing solutions,
efforts at
implementing solutions, and efforts at reviewing the relative
success
of such implementation, including referral by the NC to
its Constituencies for
comment.
Status Quo:
An effort has been taken by the NC to terminate the
life of
WG-Review. This is a catastrophic "operational" failure.
Recommendation:
Extend
the life of WG-Review or charge the NC with creating a
new and ongoing Review
Committee.
Thank you for your time in consideration of this matter.
Joanna Lane
WG-Review
Member.
GA Member
@Large Member
Brian Appleby
brianappleby@netscape.net
WG-Review
Member
Luca Muscara
muscara@unive.it
WG-Review Member