Folks, I sent the following to the discuss@dnso.org list. While I
am not surprised that the intelligent discussion on these topics
seems to be at the moment confined to the PAB list, from a political
point of view, I think it is much better if that intelligent
discussion takes place on the discuss@dnso.org list (on which I think -
hope - that many of you already are).
I will go a little further -- In my opinion it is politically vital
that *significant*, *intelligent* comment start appearing on the
discuss@dnso.org list within the next 12 hours. At this moment
paralysis seems to be setting in, and we can't let that happen.
The "merged draft" is at
http://www.dnso.org/docs/dnsopdraft-jan19.html
Thanks
Kent
----- Forwarded message from Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> -----
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 00:03:50 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
To: discuss@dnso.org, participants@dnso.org
Subject: Onward
It may be my imagination, but a general fatigue seems to have set in
since the Washington meeting. That's unfortunate. We don't have
much time, and we should be constructively engaged. In particular,
a new drafting committee has not been formed, at a time when
drafting is what we need to be doing.
In the hopes of stirring concrete and focussed discussion, I have
the following list of questions concerning the merged draft. I
would like feedback on them.
1. The ccTLDs and NSI have in various ways called for what amounts
to a veto over any policy that they don't like. I believe it is a
bad idea to cast that into the structure of the bylaws. However, I
do think some recognition of the reality of the situation with the
registries is warranted. I propose that the following text be added
to the objectives section:
The DNSO recognizes that current registries have already existing
relationships with their registrants and, in many cases, with
sovereign governments. The DNSO recognizes that there is a
strong presumption of continued stable operation of these
relationships.
Comments?
2. INTA has expressed concern over a definition of the At-Large that
is too vague. However, their draft defines an "Other Entities"
constituency that is not that much different -- the precise language is:
An individual, firm, association or corporation that uses the
Internet or has a legitimate interest in the objectives of the
DNSO.
This language is an almost direct rendition of the criteria in the
ICANN bylaws, and is not very far from our idea of an At-large
constituency. The complicating factor is the term "legitimate
interest". INTA actually took a stab at a definition of legitimate
interest that used economic criteria, but I have been told that they
are not particularly tied to that definition, and indeed, may not
even be very happy with it.
I propose to use the exact language above as the definition of the
At-large constituency, and leave the phrase "legitimate interest"
undefined for the present time.
Comments?
3. There have been a couple of cogent proposals for a new
constituency, variously defined, but all rather similar -- a "public
sector/ public interest" constituency. The best exposition of it has
come from Christopher Wilkinson; it's on the DNSO web site. I
propose adding that constituency, with the following language:
Public sector/Public benefit entities: Schools, libraries,
hospitals, museums, government agencies, non-profit charities,
and other entities that provide service to the general public.
Comments?
4. The merged draft includes the notion of a standing membership
committee. I propose that language be added to clarify the appeal
process in the case of a dispute. That is,
membership committee appeal -> Names Council -> ICANN
Comments?
5. The merged draft has the NC electing the ICANN board nominees. I
propose that should be changed to having the NC act as a nominations
committee (or that a special nominations committee be formed) to
select a slate of at least 9 possible candidates; and that the
membership vote on these candidates.
Comments?
6. The INTA draft assumes equal representation among the
constituencies, ICC, and other groups favor that model as well. I
propose that every constituency have three NC reps.
Comments?
7. The application should have a provision that explicitly states
that the bylaws/charter will be under development through the "dnso
process" while under ICANN review -- it's not expected that there
will be major changes, but that the participants committ to polishing
and improving the bylaws as necessary.
This seems like a basically good idea.
Any objections?
8. Esther Dyson requested that there be explicit language for the
creation of new constituencies. How about something like:
Petitions for creation of a new C can be given to the NC; if 1/4
of the general membership signs the petition the NC must consider
the matter and accept or reject the proposal; their decision can
be appealed to ICANN board. [The ICANN board has a special
interest in this matter.]
9. There has been much debate about the "powers" of the Names
Council. It occurs to me that there should be a distinction made
here: there are powers associated with the developing of policies
and getting them to the ICANN board to be considered. On the other
hand there are the executive powers associated with authorizing
payment of the bill for the telephone conferences. That is, it
might be useful to distinguish between powers in the two different
areas.
Comments?
-- Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain----- End forwarded message -----
-- Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:38 PST