[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    |   froomkin@law.tm
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.   <--