[ncdnhc-discuss] NCSO Formation Efforts in conjunction with ccSO

[Dany Vandromme]

YJ Park wrote:
> 
> NCDNHC members,
> 
> Please, make your comments on this draft resolution.
> 
> Since the first proposal, there have been encouragements and
> sketipcism which we need to make this draft resolution more
> malleable.
> 
> Regards,
> YJ
> 
>                                                              Version 0.1
> August. 17, 2001
>                                                              Version 1.1
> August. 30, 2001
> 
> YJ Park
> 
>                                     (Draft) Resolution for
>                 Non-Commercial Supporting Organization
> 
> The current Non-Commercial Domain Names Holders Constituency
> of Domain Names Supporting Organization has been recognized by
> the ICANN Board in Santiago in August ICANN meeting, 2000.
> 
> Since then, non-commercial domain names holders constituency
> has been encountering an endless challenge in the DNSO. It is always
> outnumbered in DNSO decision-making process by the majority votes.
> 
> It turned out that it is almost impossible for Non-commercial domain
> name holders constituency to address its concerns which has reflected
> underrepresented groups such as small businesses world-wide,
> developing countries,
> 
> NCDNHC members' interests are too diverse being mixed in this same
> group under the name of non-commercial domain names holders
> constituency.: There are education and research organizations, civil
> society groups, consumer groups, activist groups for citizens, non-
> commercial purpose lobbyist groups etc..
> 
> As WG-Review and At-Large Study Committee recognized in their report,
> DNSO has been suffering from its imbalanced structure from its start,
> five commercial-oriented constituencies, Registrar, ISP, IP, Business,
> gTLD constituency, versus one non-commercial oneand ccTLD [note1]
> 
> Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency of the DNSO
> hereby declares its withdrawl from DNSO in Montevideo and its new
> formation of Non-Commercial Supporting Organization, NCSO
> supporting ccSO.
> 
> Non-Commercial Supporting Organization shall be formed in
> conjunction with ccSO in near future and this movement should not
> be confused with At-Large structure within ICANN.
> 
> Therefore, ICANN can be restructured as follows:
> 
> Half of Structure:
> 
>         ASO(Address Supporting Organization),
>         CSO(Commercial Supporting Organization): Previous DNSO
>         ccSO(ccTLD Supporting Organization)
>         NCSO(Non-Commercial Supporting Organization)
>         PSO(Protocol Supporting Organization)
> 
> The Half of Structure
> 
>         At-Large Members:
> 
> [Note1] ccTLD is difficult to categorize whether it is commercial or
> non-commercial in a simple way.
> 
-
YJ
I do not support such a proposal.
1) I think that the NCDNHC could have achieved a much better work within
DNSO, if it was better focused on real concerns, based on consensus,
with a pro-active method. Instead of that, all topics are dealt in
emergengy, as answers to questions from ICANN. For each question, the
constituency is working in reaction, building more or less the
constituency position from scratch.

2) The main voices we can hear on the discussion list, are individual
voices, not organisations! This impacts a lot on the quality of the
discussion, but also on the nature of the consensus. I am even inclined
to think that the lack of structure of the constituency (including its
financial and management organisation) is a consequence of being a
collection of individuals speaking for themselves, with their personnal
motivations, not on behalf of the organisation they are representing. 

3) Bring the NCC collection at a SO level would be a major mistake. Such
SO would not have more recognition as SO, by other SO, than NCDNHC by
the current DNSO constituencies.

4) What would be the support, that NCSO would bring to ICANN? Voice,
technical contribution, finances? There are so many things we should do
first to improve ourselves in the DNSO framework, prior to even think
about a different context (SO).

5) I mostly agree with Alejandro, that this proposal could deserve to be
a discussion item for the next meeting, but certainly not a resolution
to announce the withdraw from DNSO.

Cheers

Dany
-
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dany VANDROMME                    |  Directeur du GIP RENATER

                Reseau National de Telecommunications
         pour la Technologie, l'Enseignement et la Recherche

                                  |  ENSAM
Tel   :  +33 (0)1 53 94 20 30     |  151 Boulevard de l'Hopital
Fax   :  +33 (0)1 53 94 20 31     |  75013 Paris
E-mail: Dany.Vandromme at renater.fr |  FRANCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------