[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [IFWP] IDNO letter
Might one ask who made this agenda-setting decision, and when?
On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Esther Dyson wrote:
> Dear Joop and colleagues -
> I'm writing to respond personally to your proposal for an Individual Domain
> Name Holders' Constituency. As you know, the Initial Board decided not to
> consider it in Berlin because it was not among the seven constituencies we
> hoped to see form to constitute the full DNSO. At this point, we are still
> hoping to approve conditionally the last of the seven original
> constituencies, and allow the process of enlarging the board to move forward.
> That means that the Initial Board won't be considering your petition this
> time either, since we're still working on the first seven.
Was this decided at the recent telephone conference? Before? After? By
the Board, or the staff?
> Let me say personally that I am not totally comfortable with this
> decision. Given that the At-Large Membership is not yet constituted, I
> think it important that individuals' concerns have some representation
> within the DNSO.
> However, there are two other points worth noting.
> First is that the representativeness of the IDNO is still questionable; it
> faces many of the same challenges of outreach and breadth that the ICANN
> Initial Board faces in trying constitute its At-Large membership. Creating
> the IDNO now may be a way of avoiding rather than solving this problem.
Please don't misunderstand: I'm not expressing an opinion on the validity
or otherwise of the IDNO. But I am curious as to why and especially how
it doesn't even get a hearing.
> Second, I am more concerned that the voices and interests of individuals be
> *represented* in the work of the DNSO, than with precisely how that happens.
As a sort-of veteran of Working Group A, and as an individual who sought,
seemingly in vain, to be officially included in it, I am not in the least
optimistic about this at this moment...
> Although the process is certainly messy, the concerns of individuals and
> individuals' rights are now being heard within the DNSO working groups -
> although perhaps not as effectively as they should be. Making sure that
> that process works is where I think we should be focusing our attention
> right now.
In order to decide if "the process works" it would be most helpful to have
a fuller understanding of the "process" that produced this outcome.
A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | email@example.com
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
--> It's hot and humid here. <--