I've just finished reading about the current
efforts to form the initial constituencies of
the DNSO:
http://www.icann.com/dnso/constituency_groups.html
It certainly appears like there is an obvious
split occurring in the constituency formation
process. Specifically, we are seeing the well
funded, more established stakeholders organize
in a way that will likely disenfranchise the
minority stakeholders.
This is not a new problem. In fact, it is just
more of the same. To date, we have seen similar
efforts in the ICANN and the DNSO formation
processes.
But just like the minority stakeholders were able
to influence Commerce wrt ICANN, and ICANN wrt the
DNSO, we must now work together to influence the
formation of these DNSO constituencies as well.
However much I would love to simply work with ISOC
on the Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders constituency,
and the Trademark lobby on the Trademark, Intellectual
Property, Anti-Counterfeiting constituency, I doubt
this approach will work.
If history is any guide, the only way the minority
positions will have *any* chance of being accommodated,
is for the minorities to organize and present competing
proposals.
So, this is what we must do.
Now, some may argue that it is too early to base
any decisions on the few comments submitted so far.
Unfortunately, we really have very little time to
let things develop.
The way Berlin is set up, the constituencies that
are well organized and well represented will likely
be approved *first*. In turn, these constituencies
will likely get to establish the ground rules for
the entire Names Council (even if only three
qualify, for example).
So, my first suggestion is that all legitimate
stakeholders work to be included in at least one
constituency that will be recognized in Berlin.
IMHO, the initial seven constituencies are the
only ones that are likely to be approved in Berlin.
So while we may want an Individual's constituency,
it is unlikely to be approved first. Rather than
take a chance at being excluded, I further suggest
that we focus our work on the seven initial
constituencies. (i.e. no Individual/Open/Closed).
I also believe that we should not try and compete
on the same terms as the more established players.
For example, we should not try and compete with their
advertising dollars, with their big PR agencies, nor
should we try and have the most people in Berlin.
But we should work together towards our common
goals, and we should use the Internet to its fullest
advantage. We *can* be effective with powerful
positions, and the truthfulness of our words.
In conclusion, I'd like to make the following
suggestions:
1) Any stakeholder who, in attempting to
participate in the formation of one of the seven
initial constituencies, feels like they are being
disenfranchised by another effort, should announce
an *Internet* based organizing effort.
2) Each such effort should commit to completing
their proposal by May 21st. They should also commit
to sending a representative to present their position
at the Berlin meeting.
3) The ultimate goal of these efforts should be
to protect legitimate positions within the initial
constituencies. For this reason, we should make
every attempt to work with the other efforts.
If a compromise does not occur by May 21st, all
competing proposals will have several days to attempt
a reconciliation before the General Assembly meeting
on May 25th.
Hope this helps.
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.
404-943-0524 http://www.iperdome.com
