Re: [ICANN-EU] Questions for Jeanette Hofmann and the other candidates

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 09:34 28/08/00 +0000, you wrote:
>Joop,
>
>My contribution.

Thank you, Roberto. Glad you join in this informative exercise.
>>
>>1.How are you going to promote the representation of Individuals in the 
>>DNSO?
>>Are you going to actively support the admission of a separate constituency
>>for this group?
>
>While it is true that it is the task of the ICANN BoD to approve new 
>constituencies, it will do so following a proposal from the DNSO, not "motu 
>proprio".

According to the Bylaws, it will do so following a petition from the
constituency-in spe.
The Board may seek advice from the NC, but in view of the vested interests
of the existing constituencies, the Board should always reserve an
independent attitude towards such advice.
It is therefore entirely approproate to canvass candidates for a Board
position on their personal stance on this issue.
The ICANN as a membership organization cannot allow its initial DNSO to
rule on future DNSO structure.

 I also assume that they will evaluate the proposal, and the 
>comment of the DNSO (NC), and therefore it will be more appropriate to 
>concentrate the effort in the DNSO, rather than to seek a possible 
>endorsement outside.
>
As you know, Roberto, I have concentrated quite a bit of effort on the DNSO
over the past 2 years.   The show of hands in Yokohama (67 against 3) , no
matter how much you would like to focus on the abstainers, showed that I
had them pretty well convinced.
Now is the  time to see if this petition will get support from the incoming
Board members.

>You know my support of the representation of the Individuals - currently 
>this is completely missing in the DNSO, so I don't lose time on that, but I 
>would point out to all those on this list that are also thinking that 
>something has to be done to ensure representativity of the Individuals on 
>the DNSO that they should join the General Assembly, and express their POV 
>there. If the ball does not get rolling in the GA, it is very unlikely that 
>the ICANN Board will even have this on their future agendas.
>
How can you say that the ball isn't rolling already in the DNSO?
We have had a doubly seconded motion and a vote. You yourself are stating
on the GA list that a second round of voting in the virtual GA would be
superfluous.
If the Names Council  again refuses co-operation and fudges the Special
Task Force and the WG on this issue, then it is indeed time for the Board
to intervene and approve the constituency on a provisional basis, just like
it did with the non-commercial DN holders constituency in Berlin.

>>
>>2. What are you proposing to do about  further balancing the DNSO's
>>representativeness?
>>
>
>Please excuse me, but this is not the Board's business.

Roberto, the interim  Board was the only entity that could bootstrap the
DNSO and it did so, badly flawed, in Singapore.
The Board is still the only entity that is responsible for structuring the
ICANN's organs.

>The DNSO has started a process in Yokohama - the DNSO Review - that 
>addresses this concern, and I, as GA Chair, am participating to it with 
>representatives of all Constituencies.

This is a process of co-optation, if allowed to proceed. 
It is improper that the Individual DN owners have to petition their
opposing interests.
The Bylaws correctly give the decisionmaking role to the Board.

>I will consider improper ingerence from the Board (and not in line with the 
>proclaimed bottom-up nature of the process) the pressure for making things 
>evolve in one or the other direction.
>
The interim Board already prejudiced their natural evolution. It decreed
the existing 7 constituencies.
 As has been my own experience with the idno constituency, bootstrapping
cannot be a bottom-up process.
Do you know what would be a bottom-up process?
To let the General Assembly of the DNSO evolve into a large elected body
(say 250 members), with powers overriding those of a Names Coucil, that
would be made up of constituencies naturally evolved from the interests
that are present in the GA.

>
>>3. What specific checks do you propose on the powers of the Names Council?
>>
>
>See above.
>
>I am not arguing that some things do not need to be fixed in the DNSO, and 
>in its internal balance of powers, but I strongly object on having these 
>changes imposed by the Board.
>If this will happen, the NC, GA, and all that jazz may well go home and do 
>something else with the little precious time.
>

The structure was imposed (and had to be) from the start.
After the CENTR proposal (and consensus) in Singapore was ignored by the
Board, many have indeed gone home, embittered and desillusioned.
Do I need to name names?
There were good and valuable people among them.
Why do you want to maintain the illusion that the GA falls in the same
category of jazz as the NC?  You know that only the minorities in the NC
feel that they are wasting their time. The Industry constituencies are
doing fine. :-|

In the GA, it's those who are still unrepresented on the NC who are
spending their precious time.
And their money, to attend ICANN meetings. For what, do you think?



--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org