>If I may comment on this, I would say that it is very difficult for
>commercial organizations to understand the philosophy of open meetings. They
>are used to the fact that when they hold a meeting, they send a definite
>number of invitations, to a very targeted audience (individuals or
>organizations).
This corporate behavior would not justify holding a closed meeting of
substance on issues which affect the Internet community and in
contradiction to the much-touted openness and transparency of this process.
All these messages indicate that something about this meeting is sorely
amiss. Therefore, I am posting my response on both the domain-policy list,
where the message above originated, and on the dnso-discuss list, where
this belongs.
The organizers of this meeting need to put forth some public information.
To quell concerns, perhaps the organizers could answer these questions
about the January 21-22 meetings:
1. What was the criteria for being a sponsor of this meeting? Why are
no sponsoring organizations that operate in the public interest included?
2. Who determined what organizations to invite? Did any invitees
decline participation? Did any organizations requesting inclusion get
turned down? If so, on what basis?
3. How was the invitation presented, i.e., was there a specific agenda
to get the commercial sponsors together to discuss, negotiate and
coordinate positions, any specific funding requested (although it says the
meeting is self-supporting), other concerns/requirements to participate?
4. What are the objectives of the January 21 meeting?
5. Has an agenda for the January 22 meeting been determined? If so,
by whom, and if not, when will it be and by whom? If the hope is to "limit
the discussion to those matters which have generated the most controversy
in recent months", on what specific questions will the discussion focus?
6. Has a timeline for the day determined? Have any objectives for the
meeting been identified?
7. Who are the "DNSO members" that are mentioned as decisionmakers of
these issues? Am I a member if I participate on the DNSO-discuss list but
cannot afford to attend these meetings? Must money change hands to be
eligible to vote? The meeting invitation says "space is limited". What is
the limit to attendance at the Jan. 22 meeting? How many will be
participating in the Jan. 21 sponsors+ORSC meeting.?
8. If the goal is to arrive at a broad-based consensus on the draft bylaws for
the DNSO, how will that consensus defined and determined (voice vote, show
of hands? one person=one vote?) by this group? Will those who cannot
attend this meeting be given a channel for providing input and
participating in the consensus determination? Why does consensus need to
be announced at a physical meeting and not withheld until those online
actually get to contribute to the discussion? For example, incorporation.
This probably isn't merely a gut decision but one that should be answered
based on some political and legal realities. Why not post those realities
so that INFORMED consensus can be ascertained.
9. What role does the WIPO study play in the establishment of a DNSO?
Will it be discussed during the meeting?
10. How can independent enterprises and individual domain registrants
(collectively a very large constituency) have a true voice in these
negotiations?
>Don't bet on the fact that large parts will be left out. With some good
>will, if some other "sponsor" can agree on this approach, we may foud
>ourselves with a formally closed preparation meeting, but with most of the
>positions represented.
It is unclear why various positions need to be represented if this is a
"preparation" meeting. Preparation implies defining an agenda,
objectives, a timeline for the day. The sponsors could accomplish all this
through emails.
Preparation for the meeting should involve identifying on which points
consensus must be determined, and making those issues available on line in
order to get a broader reach. This, of course, is a risk for the
sponsoring corporations, which is the reason I suspect that approach isn't
being offered to the rest of us. I see plenty of technical skill in that
group of sponsors to believe they could create a simple voting/feedback
mechanism available online. It's got to be easier than accepting
electronic registrations and membership fees.
And, finally (may as well get all my questions/concerns concatenated into
one humongous message) could someone please flowchart the membership and
decision-making process that would occur between DNSO and ICANN. Why would
individuals become members of both organizations? If DNSO recommendations
are only advisory to ICANN, why is the group discussing incorporation?
Or, conversely, is incorporation a requisite to engage in a contractual
arrangement with ICANN? What liability could be attached to organization
that only serves in an advisory capacity?
Ellen Rony Co-author
The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com
================================ // ===================================
ISBN 0879305150 *=" ____ / +1 (415) 435-5010
erony@marin.k12.ca.us \ ) Tiburon, CA
// \\ "Carpe canine"