William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> I call for a vote of participants on this list for which draft
> they support.
>
> It is time to vocalize your support, and clearly indicate who you
> represent.
>
OK, I'll bite:
There are number of problems with the Paris draft. Section 2.1 leaves the
issue of who is eligible for DNSO membership up to ICANN by making it
coextensive with ICANN's membership. It is not yet clear what the makeup of
this membership will be or whether it would be appropriate for the DNSO.
Section 3.2 requires the General Assembly to "self-organize into diverse
constituencies" without providing any mechanism for doing so. If
discussions on these mailing lists are any indication, this is likely to
generate endless squabbles about the proper number and type of
constituencies that would likely not be resolved until ICANN stepped in to
impose a solution.
The real show-stoppers are in Article V, specifically Sections 5.8 through
5.11. The "Fair Hearing" provisions of Sections 5.8, 5.10, and 5.11 make it
possible for any special interest or special interest group to delay almost
indefinitely any policy that they disagree with. Section 5.9 goes even
further. It elevates the particular special interest group of registries
above all others by giving it veto power and by requiring an essentially
unachievable 3/4 supermajority of registries for approval. These
provisions, taken individually and in toto, would make it nearly impossible
for the DNSO to produce any substantive policy recommendations whatsoever.
That is unacceptable to me. It is my hope and expectation that it will
prove to be unacceptable to ICANN as well.
The flaws in the Washington draft are relatively minor by comparison.
Business interests are overrepresented, and there is no mechanism for
individual users or domain holders to participate directly (Section I.B).
It also fails to make clear whether Names Council members are elected by the
constituencies they represent or by the entire membership (Section I.E). I
regard the former approach as necessary to prevent the Names Council from
being captured by a special interest group or groups constituting a majority
of the membership.
The Washington draft, however, would create a DNSO that is capable of taking
action. For that reason, I support it, albeit as the lesser of two evils.
