Under that criteria ICANN itself is not representative, much less the SO's
(especially the PSO and ASO), nor are the all the lesser groups within
those SOs.
> For all of the enthusiasm
> of the early members, take a look at the group's size and composition and
> consider honestly whether it can yet claim that it has developed a broad
> enough and large enough base of support to claim that it is a GLOBAL
> representative for Internet individuals?
I'm considering... OK .. yup, this group is certainly global and it
covers a pretty good base. And one ought to remember that the general
principle of such a group has been endorsed by groups within the ACM and
apparently by ISOC.
One has to remember that any individual-oriented group is always going to
be comparatively less structured than a business group that has people
whose job it is to be "goers" and that have budgets to cover the expenses.
As such, I'd submit that on a relative scale, this is a more advanced
group than any other of the DNSO sub-bodies. What other sub-body has a
voting structure in place and working?
> 4. In Berlin, the ICANN Board specified ONE gTLD representative, until
> there are more gTLDs. Hence, NSI's offer goes against a limitation and NSI
> knows this.
That limitation, although understandable, represented a unilateral, and
privately made, amendment to ICANN's organic documents. That kind of
usurpation of authority calls for thousands of kilometers of gray ribbon.
ICANN's board, to be true to its principles, ought to have allowed the
DNSO to "self organize". But that has not been allowed to occur.
Rather, it has been guided, or perhaps a better description would be "led
by the nose".
> 5. NSI is, as usual, trying to create controversy. It is a brilliant
> ploy, since it looks as if they are trying to be good guys while the ICANN
> Board is likely to look bad. But NSI knows that that is exactly how it is
> likely to play.
Perhaps NSI is not brilliant, but only appears bright because of the
comparision with the lack of light from the ICANN board.
Much as I do not like NSI, were I shareholder in NSI (which I am not, but
it would cost me only about $60US), I would have a more significant and
legally supportable voice in its affairs than I do in ICANN or the DNSO
that has been formulated by ICANN's board.
> Please do not aid NSI in this disruptive effort. Focus on growing the
> organization and gaining constituency participation. Everything
> constructive will flow from that.
How in the world are we to "focus on growing the organization" when the
ICANN board has rejected our even the most basic form of our
participation?
One should remember that if Jon Postel were to be resurrected and came to
the DNSO he would have no means of direct participatory role beyond this
group.
Every step of the way, from the original IANA proposals of last summer
through today, ICANN has resisted participation by individuals. It was
only through the application of pressure that there is even the bare, and
yet unrealized, promise of an ICANN membership. ICANN has demonstrated
little reason to believe that the individual voice in DNS matters will
come about without similar pressure.
--karl--
-- This message was sent via the idno mailing list. To unsubscribe send a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno" to listmanager@radix.co.nz. For more information about the IDNO, see http://www.idno.org/