[ICANN-EU] Re: The Key Questions for Jeanette Hoffmann

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

At 12:54 4/09/00 +0100, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>
>> Dear Jeanette,
>> 
>> Thank you for your earlier reply on funding for the directors.
>> 
>> Perhaps you needed some more time to ponder your reply to the questions
>> asked with regards to your position on the Individual DN holders'
>> Constituency for the DNSO.
>
>Indeed, I needed this time. Frankly, I am still not sure about the best 
>answer to this question. 

Dear Jeanette,

I don't think you need to look for  a "best answer". There is only *your*
answer.

>On the one hand, it is easy to argue that, in principle, all kinds of DN 
>holders should be given the opportunity to form their own 
>constituency. 

Yes, they have the opportunity to form it, and they are doing it,  but it
is the recognition as a DNSO constituency that counts.

<Haralds excellent comments, with which I agree for a great part, snipped>

>According to the ga-dnso list, many people seem to agree with 
>Harald's view. 

The problem is, that rules have already been enacted (such as the URDP)
that affect large groups that were not properly represented in the NC.

If we now choose to try to influence the Board to abandon the constituency
structure (not likely to be successful--if you read all the comments made
in the GA) and we are not coming with good ideas to replace it with a more
representative and balanced stucture, we are actually doing more harm than
good.
The status quo will continue and the bitterness of the unrepresented group
will increase.
We may even be accused of deliberately helping to sideline the IDNO issue
once again.

>Thus, if the very structure of the DNSO turns out to be in itself a 
>failure, would it be a good idea to cement this structure by proceeding 
>to establish the constituency of individual domain name holders at this 
>point? Or should this effort be temporarely deferred because the 
>whole structure has been called into question? 

I think this is the question you have to answer for yourself prior to
asking to have your nomination supported.

>This is a tricky question. As far as I see there is no easy answer 
>available at present. 
>
Well, here is *my* answer to that question: The effort to improve
representation should certainly not be "temporarily deferred" . 
This is exactly what the ICANN Board has done since the Berlin meeting.
(the excuse was then : what about the structure of ICANN@large?  

It is not exactly that many different constituencies are clamouring to be
let into the DNSO.
It is only one group: the DN owners *as such*. A representative structure
for them exists and they are ready to participate.

The key problem with the currently "approved" constituencies is the
duplication of interests and the exclusion of opposing interests.
Constituencies (or parties) will always form around issues.
The structure has to be flexible enough to accommodate this without too
much delay.

Every Board candidate at this moment should have a vision for what should
be done with ICANN's most intractable problem, the DNSO.
The votes should be awarded to the candidate with the vision that the
voters can share.

Respectfully,




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