All,
And the dogs of the DNS war continue to snarl...
Let the divisiveness continue....
Jay Fenello wrote:
> 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
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
