1. How many people do you think can constitute a functioning Policy=
Oversight=20
Committee? 10-15
2. Which interest classes require representation in the gTLD-MoU Policy
Oversight=20
Committee? Domain Name Holders...surely the most important group in the
whole registration process should not be overlooked!!!
End-Users YES
Internet Service Providers YES
Telecommunications Companies NO - unless ISPs
Public Interest Groups YES!!! HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS TOO!!!
Business and Advertising Interests NOOOOOOOO!!!!!
Content Providers NO - this is DNS not WWW!!!! Perhaps e-mail authors
too... :-)
Internet Technical Infrastructure Interests ???? IETF - YES!!!!
Software Suppliers NO
Trademark Community/Law NOOOOOOO!!!!
Intergovernmental Interests ???
Domain Name Registrars YES
Other (please specify, providing a short justification of this
constituency to=20
be represented in DNS-oversight matters) ___________________________=20
DOMAIN NAME HOLDERS - these were surveyed by IPv6 committee several=
years
ago by e-mail to "postmaster@registered_domain". Why has the gTLD-MOU
kept itself nearly invisible to this, the most directly effected=
group?
Virtually no-one not even ISPs have heard of your group or what it
proposes to do to DNS. Why not survey them (it's really easy) and let
them vote!!! Let's see how many *.com holders are eager to substitute
"Swiss trade law" for American commercial law? Ah, perhaps a motivate
for silence... Perhaps someone should send mail to all registered
domain
holders alerting them to these happenings.
Human Rights Groups - freedom of speech, including freedom of expression
through global communications, is the direct decedent of freedom of
the press and freedom of assembly. Don't mess lightly or in a biased
manner with the ability to locate network addresses as the reliable
location of message receipt and origination [including private=
messages
and publicly "published" messages, which in today's technology=20
translates to e-mail (the Internet's most popular application) and to
the
WorldWide Web which is the SECOND most popular application].
3. Which of the listed interest classes above do you think are
under-represented=20
in the gTLD-MoU Policy Oversight Committee?
=20
Other than the missing groups, how could we know without knowing the
current
distribution of members?
4. For each of the interests classes you have indicated as
under-represented in=20
the gTLD-MoU Policy Oversight Committee:
Should each representative be selected from groups within a class (e.g.,
trade=20
or other associations) or directly from members of that class?=20
=20
Much more fundamentally - why do you think that Representative Governance
should prevail and be the only mechanism used? Every new technology
brings new opportunities. Why not use direct electronic voting on issues
sent to Referendum WITHIN a group and/or across the ENTIRE gTLD-MoU POC?
This seems the obvious way gain legitimacy that the process grossly
lacks at this time: direct participatory democracy.
To have perverted the Internet rule of "rough consensus among experts" was
an elitist mistake when applied to matters of public interest such as
DNS policy. You can't have it both ways, claiming the Internet is now
pre-dominantly a "commercial network" while invoking the procedures
of a US Government funded public interest network. In fact it is the
withdrawal of the NSF that has been held out as a "crisis" necessitating
immediate action [although why something that isn't broken needs urgent
fixing escapes my understanding]. It ultimately could signal the end of
the Internet/IETF process and a return to the much more formal ISO process
of reconciled national interest groups (witness the ANSI TAG battle raging
over JAVA). I see this lack of legitimacy as a very juicy area for=
lawyers
to crawl out of their holes and stomp this whole thing into the ground.
=20
What is the appropriate procedure for nominating representatives for each
of=20
the classes that you have indicated are under-represented?=20
NONE for the direct democratic group. Vote electronically by e-mail or=
web
site on the issues at hand.
Nominate, debate, and select electronically for the representative groups.
=20
What is the appropriate procedure for selecting representative for each
of the=20
classes that you have indicated are under-represented?=20
=20
=20
Electronic balloting. In the case of registered domain name holders, the
Internic already maintains a listing of administrative contacts. RCF-82x
call out "postmaster@domain" as a requirement, that can also be used.
Ballots could contain keys/certs for verification. At any rate,=
one-domain
one-vote seems simple (regardless of the "organization" behind them).
=20
=20
What is the length of term each representative should serve for each of=
the=20
classes that you have indicated are under-represented? If desired, please=
=20
include suggested mandatory term limits.=20
Zero for the direct democratic groups. Unless as sort of an electoral=20
commission co-ordinator or a sort of "governor general" in the British
tradition.
One year for the other groups (which is about 4 "Web years" anyway)
=20
5. Please discuss below any other considerations vis-=E0-vis the structure o=
f
the gTLD-
MoU Policy Oversight Committee not covered in this questionnaire.=20
=20
Legitmacy. See above.
Also there is a back handed TradeMark attack on domains meaningful in the
English language since every gTLD proposed to date is semantically
meaningful
in the English language, but, say Hindi names, would not receive the same
worldwide threat. Of course for established top level domains
(particularly
*.com) this comes on top of opening up to global competition and to the
favoring of "Swiss Trade Law" - oh what legal joys ... try finding a=
lawyer
conversant in that down the street...
=20
=20
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. DuWors <mailto:rjd@csgroup.com> tel:+1.440.255.2869 =20
Connected Systems Group 7638 Aster Drive, Mentor, Ohio 44060