Hi Molly,
>http://www.icann.com/dnso/constituency_groups.html
>
>In addition, organizers should send drafts of these
>materials and/or a status report, no later than Monday,
>April 26. All of these materials should be sent to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Per request, Iperdome would like to file the
following Constituency Formation Status Report.
For background, on March 16th, I wrote:
>One of the decisions of the ICANN Board was to approve
>a DNSO that featured overlapping constituencies. This
>creates a problem common to all constituencies, namely,
>where do we draw the lines.
>
>For example, Iperdome may desire to join the following
>constituencies, for the following reasons:
>
>ccTLD registries
> Iperdome is the official registry for
> the .per.nu domain, sub-delegated via
> RFC-1591
>
>Commercial and business entities
> Iperdome is a business entity
>
>gTLD registries
> Iperdome is a prospective gTLD registry
>
>ISPs and connectivity providers
> Iperdome is an ISP
>
>Non-commercial domain name holders
> Iperdome's clients are almost exclusively
> non-commercial domain name holders.
>
>Registrars
> Iperdome acts as a registrar for personal
> domain names.
>
>Trademark, intellectual property, anti-counterfeiting interests
> Iperdome is a trademark, and .per(sm) is a
> service mark.
>
>My concern is that certain constituencies are
>attempting to form in private, behind closed
>doors. This could easily result in a biased
>process, one that excludes legitimately
>interested parties.
My concerns were well founded. While there
have been some efforts to have open processes
used in the formation of these constituencies,
for the most part, we see more gaming by the
largest and most powerful stakeholders.
For example, some groups have worked in secret
for over a month, and have only recently (in
the last two days) revealed their direction.
Others have tried to make rules designed to
disenfranchise all but the "right" players.
For example, recognition by Inter-governmental
agencies, or by requiring a response to a
deadline that occurs *before* their plan
is even approved.
Iperdome believes that it, and thousands
of small organizations just like it, have a
legitimate claim to be fairly represented
in the constituencies as defined by ICANN,
regardless of our size, age or financial
resources.
For these reasons, Iperdome plans to review
all submissions to ICANN. Then, in each
separate constituency for which Iperdome
has a legitimate claim to be represented,
we will either:
1) Support one of the existing proposals.
2) Work with similarly situated organizations,
and in the spirit of Open-RSC and the BWG, take
the best features from any of the plans submitted,
and generate a broader consensus document.
For the record, Iperdome claims membership
in the following constituencies:
ccTLD registries
Commercial and business entities
gTLD registries
ISPs and connectivity providers
Registrars
Trademark, intellectual property,
anti-counterfeiting interests
Finally, to facilitate representation
for our clients, Iperdome has formed the
Personal Domain Name Holders Association
(http://www.pdnha.org). The PDNHA claims
membership in the non-commercial domain
name holders constituency, and any other
Individual based constituency that may
be considered.
The PDNHA will also be monitoring the
formation of these constituencies, and
will also:
1) Support one of the existing proposals.
2) Work with similarly situated organizations,
and in the spirit of Open-RSC and the BWG, take
the best features from any of the plans submitted,
and generate a broader consensus document.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide
an update on our efforts, and please let me
know if I can be of further assistance.
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc. http://www.iperdome.com
Executive Director, PDNHA http://www.pdnha.org
