[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Names Council teleconference on PC-Radio

At 10:31 PM 6/16/99 -0400, Michael Sondow wrote:
>Today's (June 16) PC-Radio "internet NewsRadio" featured a report on
>last Friday's DNSO Names Council teleconference, with a snip from
>the ICIIU's tape recording of it. It's worth a listen.
>http://www.pc-radio.com  click on "internet NewsRadio" (or on the
>small red letters beneath for the archive)

Thank you Michael. Below is the relevant background information.

This url works today, but won't be relevant tomorrow.

I suspect this is the right url:

>From the ICANN bylaws:

>(a)  Each Constituency shall self-organize, and shall determine its own criteria for
>participation, except that no individual or entity shall be excluded from participation in a
>Constituency merely because of participation in another Constituency, and constituencies
>shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and
>consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness.  The Board shall recognize a
>Constituency (including the initial Constituencies described in (b) below) by a majority vote,
>whereby the Constituency shall be deemed to exist for purposes of these Bylaws. 

If the gTLD constituency is (in theory) allowed to self organize, I simply
do not understand why ICANN can dictate who is or who is not a member.

Return-Path: <owner-bwg-n-friends@spike.fibertron.com>
X-Sender: amr@mail.chaos.com
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 11:42:47 -0400
To: bwg-n-friends@fibertron.com
From: "A.M. Rutkowski" <amr@chaos.com>
Subject: [bwg-n-friends] NSI allocates seats to IDNO and TLD Ass'n constituencies
Sender: owner-bwg-n-friends@spike.fibertron.com
Reply-To: bwg-n-friends@fibertron.com

 > 11 June 1999
 > Internet Corporation for
 >     Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
 > Board of Directors
 > 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
 > Marina del Rey  CA 90292
 > CC: Michael Roberts
 >        Interim President and CEO
 > Pursuant to Art VI-B, Sec. 2(a) of the Bylaws for Internet Corporation for
 > Assigned Names and Numbers, Network Solutions as member of the gTLD
 > constituency hereby submits the following three individuals as members of
 > the Names Council:
 > Representative		
 > Donald N. Telage
 > Senior VP Network Solutions
 > 505 Huntmar Drive
 > Herndon VA 20170 USA
 > Tel: +1 703.742.4707
 > Fax: +1 703.742.3386
 > mailto:dont@netsol.com 	
 > Representative
 > Joop Teernstra
 > Cyberspace Association
 > 38 Sharon Road,
 > Browns Bay Auckland,
 > 1301 New Zealand
 > Tel: +64 9 4795552
 > Fax: +64 9 4795552
 > mailto: terastra@terabytz.co.nz	
 > Representative
 > Richard J. Sexton
 > Top Level Domain Association
 > Maitland House
 > Bannockburn ON K0K 1Y0
 > Canada Tel: +1 (613) 473-1719
 > mailto:rsexton@vrx.net 	
 > Sec 2(a) explicitly allows Network Solutions, as member of the gTLD
 > Registry constituency, to specify three Names Council seats.  Until such
 > time as additional top level domains are created and additional gTLD
 > Registries come into existence, the gTLD constituency will use two of the
 > three seats to provide an interim opportunity for individual domain name
 > holders and prospective registries to make their views known.
 > Following its closed meeting in Berlin, the ICANN Board issued resolutions
 > that included a request that the gTLD Registry Constituency voluntarily
 > relinquish its right under the ByLaws to select three representatives to
 > the Names Council of the DNSO, coupled with a statement that the Board
 > would amend its ByLaws to eliminate such representation if this action
 > were not taken "voluntarily".
 > Network Solutions, the current sole constituent of the gTLD Registry
 > constituency, is mindful of concerns about any one company having more
 > than one representative on the Names Council. (Indeed, the current Bylaws
 > already prohibit more than one employee, officer or director of any
 > company from serving on the Names Council  -- a requirement that appears,
 > by the way, to have been violated when Theresa Swinehart of MCI Worldcom
 > was elected by the Commercial and Business constituencies after Susan
 > Anthony of MCI Worldcom had already been elected by the IP constituency).
 > The Names Council should act merely to facilitate the development of
 > consensus in the General Assembly and, as such, should not need to have a
 > "balance" of any particular number of seats for any particular faction.
 > (We have seen some statements by members of the provisional Names Council
 > that give us concerns about whether it will act in this fashion, but we
 > remain hopeful that the Names Council will not become a "top down"
 > decision-making body.) Nevertheless, the allocation of Names Council seats
 > among various initial constituencies was the subject of a consensus in
 > Singapore (as ICANN President Mike Roberts himself noted in Berlin). A
 > consensus reached in the DNSO should not be disregarded or overturned by
 > the ICANN Board, especially in a closed process and without the benefit of
 > careful reconsideration in the DNSO process itself.
 > Another consensus reached at the DNSO meeting in Singapore was that all
 > stakeholders interested in the domain name system should have an
 > opportunity to participate in the DNSO and to select representatives to
 > the Names Council. It was for this reason that the ByLaws reflected an
 > opportunity for additional constituencies to apply for recognition. If the
 > central goal of the Names Council will be credibly to declare the
 > existence of a consensus in the General Assembly, it must have members
 > representing all the important stakeholder voices.
 > It is surprising and disappointing, in this context, that the ICANN Board
 > would ignore the application of an individual domain name holder
 > constituency to be added to the DNSO. Regardless of the role played by
 > individuals in electing at large ICANN Board members at some future time,
 > it is vital for the voice of individual domain name holders (a large
 > percentage of the customers of gTLD registries) to be heard. It is also
 > important for prospective registries of new TLDs to be heard, and we
 > understand that the TLDA has applied for recognition as a constituency of
 > prospective registries.
 > Accordingly, Network Solutions, acting for now as the gTLD Registry
 > constituency, in addition to naming myself as a Names Council
 > representative, declines to reliquish the Names Council seats allocated to
 > this constituency in the ByLaws.  Until such time as additional top level
 > domains are created and additional gTLD Registries come into existence, or
 > the two additional constituencies in question are recognized as entitled
 > to select Names Council members directly (if that occurs earlier), the
 > gTLD constituency will use two of the three seats to provide an interim
 > opportunity for individual domain name holders and prospective registries
 > to make their views known.  One seat will be allocated by the gTLD
 > constituency to an individual recommended by the Cyberspace Association,
 > an open group representing individuals who hold domain names.  (Joop
 > Teernstra has been selected by that group, in an open voting process.)
 > Another seat will be allocated to an individual recommended by the TLD
 > Association, a group of prospective registries.  (Richard J. Sexton has
 > been selected.)
 > Both allocations will be on a "no strings" basis  -- so that these
 > individuals can represent points of view otherwise unrepresented in Names
 > Council deliberations and without any obligation to reflect the views of
 > Network Solutions. But we should note that we believe these selections
 > serve the interests of the gTLD constituency, the DNSO and ICANN as a
 > whole. The voice of individual registrants must be heard in the policy
 > making process, not just in the selection of ICANN board members. The root
 > should be opened expeditiously -- and prospective registries must be
 > allowed to give their views regarding the orderly process under which this
 > can be achieved.
 > We take this action in part because the Names Council as now
 > constituted is not adequately balanced and open to all viewpoints.  We
 > supported the Paris draft, which suggested mechanisms that would help to
 > assure that any DNSO recommendations reflect a true consensus among
 > impacted stakeholders (such as a requirement that any one individual or
 > organization may join only one constituency, a requirement for some
 > minimum percentage of the General Assembly membership to join a
 > constituency in order to elect a Names Council member, and assured
 > reflection in Names Council proceedings of the voices of those who might
 > be called upon to implement any suggested policies). The ICANN Board
 > should seriously consider how it can avoid the creation of a
 > gerrymandered, captured DNSO -- and the importance of deferring any policy
 > decisions until the Board receives consensus recommendations from an open
 > and vigorous DNSO process.
 > The Board's actions in Berlin -- threatening to amend a previously reached
 > consensus unilaterally, denying recognition to important groups of
 > stakeholders, and encouragement of policy decisions by an only partially
 > formed and apparently skewed DNSO structure -- were all steps in the wrong
 > direction. We call upon the Board to renew its commitment to inclusive,
 > open, bottom up processes.  The resolution of the issues relating to gTLD
 > Registry constituency representation outlined above in that spirit.  An
 > amendment to the Board's bylaws, as threatened in its most recent
 > resolution, would constitute a violation of ICANN's MOU with the U.S.
 > Government and a violation of the letter and spirit of the White Paper.
 > Sincerely,
 > Donald N. Telage
 > Senior Vice President
 > On behalf of the gTLD Constituency.
>> Mr. Donald Telage
>> Network Solutions, Inc.
>> Dear Don,
>> Your message of today, copied in part below, is not responsive to the May 27
>> resolution of the ICANN Board with respect to participation of the gTLD
>> constituency in the provisional DNSO Names Council.
>> In order to participate in the Names Council, Network Solutions must name a
>> single representative as directed by the May 27th resolution.
>> The Board appreciates your concern for representation of a full range of
>> interests in the work of the DNSO.  The Board has considered and discussed
>> this objective both at its Singapore and at its Berlin meetings and in the
>> public fora associated with those meetings. It took particular note of the
>> needs of individual domain name holders for representation in its At Large
>> and Supporting Organization constituencies and indicated in its actions in
>> Berlin that it will incorporate the views of these constituencies in its
>> further actions in forming these constituencies and their representation
>> structures.
>> However, it is not the role of the gTLD constituency, or of Network
>> Solutions, to deal with these issues.  There are appropriate public
>> consensus mechanisms provided in the ICANN Bylaws and in our noticed actions
>> in this area for accomplishing that objective.
>> I look forward to hearing from you at an early date that you have
>> reconsidered your actions presented to us today and are prepared to
>> participate in the provisional Names Council in the manner adopted
>> by the Board.
>> Sincerely,
>>         Michael M. Roberts
>>         Interim President and Chief Executive Officer

Richard J. Sexton, Maitland House, Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada  K0K 1Y0
+1 (613) 473-1719     http://www.mbz.org/  70 & 72 280SE, 83 300SD
richard@mbz.org  richard@ns3.vrx.net richard@sexton.com sexton@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us