Hi Esther -- Assuming that this is a postion of ICANN that you are
reporting, may I respectfully ask if y0ou are broadcasting your
response to the partites that Jay identified as not working in an open
manner?
If not, may I respectfully ask that you and/or ICANN do so via all
possible channels of communication.
In other words, what is the point of saying such things only to the
subset that is being excluded?
Cheers...\Stef
>From your message Tue, 16 Mar 1999 19:33:40 -0500:
}
}THanks for the question, Jay. =20
}
}We tried to address this subtly in the FAQ question about constituency
}formation, because we want to let the constituencies from themselves -
}bottom up. But we certainly want open constituencies, in terms of point =
}of
}view if not necessarily what the point of view is about. That is, if a
}constituency purposely excludes one side of a broad range of views of, s=
}ay,
}registrar opinion, then there would be some justification for a second
}constituency of registrars to form itself. An interest group is most
}likely better off getting its opposition to join it rather than fostering
}the creation of an opposing constituency. Thus, we encourage constituenci=
}es
}to call for members publicly, and given that the DNSO is part of ICANN, I
}would assume they can use icann-announce to do so. =20
}
}On your choice of constituencies, I defer to others' comments, and to you=
}r
}own good sense.
}
}Respectfully,
}
}Esther
}
}At 10:49 AM 16/03/99 -0500, Jay Fenello wrote:
}>
}>Hello Esther,
}>
}>One of the decisions of the ICANN Board was to approve=20
}>a DNSO that featured overlapping constituencies. This=20
}>creates a problem common to all constituencies, namely,=20
}>where do we draw the lines.
}>
}>For example, Iperdome may desire to join the following
}>constituencies, for the following reasons:
}>
}>ccTLD registries=20
}> Iperdome is the official registry for
}> the .per.nu domain, sub-delegated via
}> RFC-1591
}>
}>Commercial and business entities=20
}> Iperdome is a business entity
}>
}>gTLD registries=20
}> Iperdome is a prospective gTLD registry
}>
}>ISPs and connectivity providers=20
}> Iperdome is an ISP
}>
}>Non-commercial domain name holders=20
}> Iperdome's clients are almost exclusively
}> non-commercial domain name holders.
}>
}>Registrars=20
}> Iperdome acts as a registrar for personal
}> domain names.
}>
}>Trademark, intellectual property, anti-counterfeiting interests=20
}> Iperdome is a trademark, and .per(sm) is a=20
}> service mark.
}>
}>My concern is that certain constituencies are=20
}>attempting to form in private, behind closed=20
}>doors. This could easily result in a biased=20
}>process, one that excludes legitimately=20
}>interested parties.
}>
}>I hereby request that the ICANN Board clearly
}>indicate that this is not acceptable, and that=20
}>any constituency wishing to be recognized by=20
}>ICANN must form via an open process.
}>
}>So far, I have only seen "public" postings to
}>form the registrar and the non-commercial domain
}>name holders constituencies, yet I am aware of
}>"private" postings for the trademark and ccTLD
}>registries constituencies.
}>
}>Please clarify this situation now, before=20
}>things get any worse.
}>
}>Thanks in advance.
}>
}>
}>Respectfully,
}>
}>Jay Fenello
}>President, Iperdome, Inc.=A0=20
}>404-943-0524=A0 http://www.iperdome.com
}>
}>
}
}
}Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes!
}chairman, EDventure Holdings
}interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
}[EMAIL PROTECTED]
}1 (212) 924-8800
}1 (212) 924-0240 fax
}104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
}New York, NY 10011 USA
}http://www.edventure.com http://www.icann.org
}
}PC Forum: 21 to 24 March 1999, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona=20
}High-Tech Forum in Europe: 24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
}Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"=20
}
}
