Subject: [bwg-n-friends] NSI allocates seats to IDNO and TLD Ass'n=
constituencies
Sender: owner-bwg-n-friends@spike.fibertron.com
Reply-To: bwg-n-friends@fibertron.com
> 11 June 1999
>
> Internet Corporation for
> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> Board of Directors
> 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
> Marina del Rey CA 90292
>
> CC: Michael Roberts
> Interim President and CEO
>
> Pursuant to Art VI-B, Sec. 2(a) of the Bylaws for Internet Corporation=
for
> Assigned Names and Numbers, Network Solutions as member of the gTLD
> constituency hereby submits the following three individuals as members of
> the Names Council:
>
> Representative =09
> Donald N. Telage
> Senior VP Network Solutions
> 505 Huntmar Drive
> Herndon VA 20170 USA
> Tel: +1 703.742.4707
> Fax: +1 703.742.3386
> mailto:dont@netsol.com =09
>
> Representative
> Joop Teernstra
> Cyberspace Association
> 38 Sharon Road,
> Browns Bay Auckland,
> 1301 New Zealand
> Tel: +64 9 4795552
> Fax: +64 9 4795552
> mailto: terastra@terabytz.co.nz=09
>
> Representative
> Richard J. Sexton
> Top Level Domain Association
> Maitland House
> Bannockburn ON K0K 1Y0
> Canada Tel: +1 (613) 473-1719
> mailto:rsexton@vrx.net =09
>
> Sec 2(a) explicitly allows Network Solutions, as member of the gTLD
> Registry constituency, to specify three Names Council seats. Until such
> time as additional top level domains are created and additional gTLD
> Registries come into existence, the gTLD constituency will use two of the
> three seats to provide an interim opportunity for individual domain name
> holders and prospective registries to make their views known.
> Following its closed meeting in Berlin, the ICANN Board issued=
resolutions
> that included a request that the gTLD Registry Constituency voluntarily
> relinquish its right under the ByLaws to select three representatives to
> the Names Council of the DNSO, coupled with a statement that the Board
> would amend its ByLaws to eliminate such representation if this action
> were not taken "voluntarily".
>
> Network Solutions, the current sole constituent of the gTLD Registry
> constituency, is mindful of concerns about any one company having more
> than one representative on the Names Council. (Indeed, the current Bylaws
> already prohibit more than one employee, officer or director of any
> company from serving on the Names Council -- a requirement that appears,
> by the way, to have been violated when Theresa Swinehart of MCI Worldcom
> was elected by the Commercial and Business constituencies after Susan
> Anthony of MCI Worldcom had already been elected by the IP constituency).
>
> The Names Council should act merely to facilitate the development of
> consensus in the General Assembly and, as such, should not need to have a
> "balance" of any particular number of seats for any particular faction.
> (We have seen some statements by members of the provisional Names Council
> that give us concerns about whether it will act in this fashion, but we
> remain hopeful that the Names Council will not become a "top down"
> decision-making body.) Nevertheless, the allocation of Names Council=
seats
> among various initial constituencies was the subject of a consensus in
> Singapore (as ICANN President Mike Roberts himself noted in Berlin). A
> consensus reached in the DNSO should not be disregarded or overturned by
> the ICANN Board, especially in a closed process and without the benefit=
of
> careful reconsideration in the DNSO process itself.
>
> Another consensus reached at the DNSO meeting in Singapore was that all
> stakeholders interested in the domain name system should have an
> opportunity to participate in the DNSO and to select representatives to
> the Names Council. It was for this reason that the ByLaws reflected an
> opportunity for additional constituencies to apply for recognition. If=
the
> central goal of the Names Council will be credibly to declare the
> existence of a consensus in the General Assembly, it must have members
> representing all the important stakeholder voices.
>
> It is surprising and disappointing, in this context, that the ICANN Board
> would ignore the application of an individual domain name holder
> constituency to be added to the DNSO. Regardless of the role played by
> individuals in electing at large ICANN Board members at some future time,
> it is vital for the voice of individual domain name holders (a large
> percentage of the customers of gTLD registries) to be heard. It is also
> important for prospective registries of new TLDs to be heard, and we
> understand that the TLDA has applied for recognition as a constituency of
> prospective registries.
>
> Accordingly, Network Solutions, acting for now as the gTLD Registry
> constituency, in addition to naming myself as a Names Council
> representative, declines to reliquish the Names Council seats allocated=
to
> this constituency in the ByLaws. Until such time as additional top level
> domains are created and additional gTLD Registries come into existence,=
or
> the two additional constituencies in question are recognized as entitled
> to select Names Council members directly (if that occurs earlier), the
> gTLD constituency will use two of the three seats to provide an interim
> opportunity for individual domain name holders and prospective registries
> to make their views known. One seat will be allocated by the gTLD
> constituency to an individual recommended by the Cyberspace Association,
> an open group representing individuals who hold domain names. (Joop
> Teernstra has been selected by that group, in an open voting process.)
> Another seat will be allocated to an individual recommended by the TLD
> Association, a group of prospective registries. (Richard J. Sexton has
> been selected.)
>
> Both allocations will be on a "no strings" basis -- so that these
> individuals can represent points of view otherwise unrepresented in Names
> Council deliberations and without any obligation to reflect the views of
> Network Solutions. But we should note that we believe these selections
> serve the interests of the gTLD constituency, the DNSO and ICANN as a
> whole. The voice of individual registrants must be heard in the policy
> making process, not just in the selection of ICANN board members. The=
root
> should be opened expeditiously -- and prospective registries must be
> allowed to give their views regarding the orderly process under which=
this
> can be achieved.
>
> We take this action in part because the Names Council as now
> constituted is not adequately balanced and open to all viewpoints. We
> supported the Paris draft, which suggested mechanisms that would help to
> assure that any DNSO recommendations reflect a true consensus among
> impacted stakeholders (such as a requirement that any one individual or
> organization may join only one constituency, a requirement for some
> minimum percentage of the General Assembly membership to join a
> constituency in order to elect a Names Council member, and assured
> reflection in Names Council proceedings of the voices of those who might
> be called upon to implement any suggested policies). The ICANN Board
> should seriously consider how it can avoid the creation of a
> gerrymandered, captured DNSO -- and the importance of deferring any=
policy
> decisions until the Board receives consensus recommendations from an open
> and vigorous DNSO process.
>
> The Board's actions in Berlin -- threatening to amend a previously=
reached
> consensus unilaterally, denying recognition to important groups of
> stakeholders, and encouragement of policy decisions by an only partially
> formed and apparently skewed DNSO structure -- were all steps in the=
wrong
> direction. We call upon the Board to renew its commitment to inclusive,
> open, bottom up processes. The resolution of the issues relating to gTLD
> Registry constituency representation outlined above in that spirit. An
> amendment to the Board's bylaws, as threatened in its most recent
> resolution, would constitute a violation of ICANN's MOU with the U.S.
> Government and a violation of the letter and spirit of the White Paper.
>
> Sincerely,
> Donald N. Telage
> Senior Vice President
> On behalf of the gTLD Constituency.
>
>
>>
>> Mr. Donald Telage
>> Network Solutions, Inc.
>>
>> Dear Don,
>>
>> Your message of today, copied in part below, is not responsive to the May=
27
>> resolution of the ICANN Board with respect to participation of the gTLD
>> constituency in the provisional DNSO Names Council.
>>
>> In order to participate in the Names Council, Network Solutions must name=
a
>> single representative as directed by the May 27th resolution.
>>
>> The Board appreciates your concern for representation of a full range of
>> interests in the work of the DNSO.=A0 The Board has considered and=
discussed
>> this objective both at its Singapore and at its Berlin meetings and in=
the
>> public fora associated with those meetings. It took particular note of=
the
>> needs of individual domain name holders for representation in its At=
Large
>> and Supporting Organization constituencies and indicated in its actions=
in
>> Berlin that it will incorporate the views of these constituencies in its
>> further actions in forming these constituencies and their representation
>> structures.
>>
>> However, it is not the role of the gTLD constituency, or of Network
>> Solutions, to deal with these issues.=A0 There are appropriate public
>> consensus mechanisms provided in the ICANN Bylaws and in our noticed=
actions
>> in this area for accomplishing that objective.
>>
>> I look forward to hearing from you at an early date that you have
>> reconsidered your actions presented to us today and are prepared to
>> participate in the provisional Names Council in the manner adopted
>> by the Board.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Michael M. Roberts
>> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Interim President and Chief Executive Officer
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org
-- 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/