Montevideo address to the General Assembly
8 Sept. 2001

The at large study committee has come with a report that makes the reaction
to that of those who have helped organizing a dnso constituency more
important than the report that I was planning to give you. The ALSC now
directly adresses representation for Individual DN holders. In a way, after
3 years, this is progress.

The prepared presentation has been thrown away and we have a New Title:

Save the DNSO or, “I like my Board predictable”

What makes jokes funny is that they always contain a grain of truth.
With regard’s to Vint’s joke in Stockholm, the truth of the 2 minority
directors was all too apparent. It is a real danger for ICANN to acquire
permanent minority Board members that sit on the Board for decoration only.

Perhaps most of you know about the work to organize the Individual DN
owners into a DNSO constituency that started in 1999 at the Singapore
meeting when the top-down constituency division for the DNSO was announced.

Naming it the Cyberspace Association, creating its Charter in open
discussion with the members, growing the membership and petitioning ICANN
(perhaps too early) to recognize this framework in principle as an
Individual Domain Name Holders’ constituency was the job.

The way to make it work, was to lay out an organizing Charter that Domain
Name holders would adhere to voluntarily in order to be able to elect
representatives via a democratic process.
These representatives would then sit on the DNSO Names Council, from
where the ICANN Board would draw its advice for DN policy .

So much for the theory.

In the words of Esther Dyson, the idno effort has not yet gained enough
“traction”. Not surprising, without finance and with internal sabotage.

The CA/idno still has its 217 members, but the sustained 2 year effort to
wrest control over it by someone who starts to show up now as more and more
as an extremist version of the ICANN staff, have left them pretty disillusioned.
Still not being a recognized constituency has not exactly encouraged growth either.

On the other hand, there is the admittedly dysfunctional DNSO.

The ICANN Board has not received “any” substantive policy advice from the
NC for over a year. They have ended up providing their own advice or taking the Staff’s.

Small wonder that some Board members see the whole DNSO as a dead duck.

Not all, I think.

The DNSO, dysfunctional as it is, partly because of its failure to
represent all stakeholders in the process of trying to create true
consensus policies , is well worth re-building and saving.

Why?

Where else can all DNS stakeholder interests battle , dispute and
negotiate about the policies that need to be recommended to the Board?

Do away with the DNSO and the battles have nowhere else to go than to Board
level. No problem, some might think, as long as we have a predictable majority of
the seats, all we need to do is vote and the battles are over.

It would be extremely shortsighted to think that an ICANN with 6 or so
permanently outvoted Directors could remain credible as a consensus based
private sector self-regulatory body for long.

The Board is not the place for bitter disputes. The Board needs advice
that includes all elements of the discussion, including compromises. (a meal ready to bite into)
The DNSO was conceived to be that consensus building body and there is
still the chance to make it that.
With the cc’s withdrawing and forming an SO, their 3 names council seats
can be re-assigned to the IC, the Individuals’ constituency.
This will remove one of the most contentious issues that has paralyzed the
DNSO until now.

How will such an IC look?

I have come here today to answer the challenge of Ken Stubs, previous NC
chair, to come up with a proposal that can be looked at as an acceptable
framework for such a constituency.

Some of it’s rules have been adapted from the earlier idno, which I propose
will become a political party within this IC.
I have posted the Constitution on the web last night and you can find it at
www.idno.org/Iccharter.htm

It would be of help if GA members who are supportive of such a framework,
would sign the document in support by affixing their name to it on this
website. No time yet to automate this function.

This is not a reborn idno, not a “Joop’s club”, but a genuine framework for
a workable Individual Domain Name Holder’s constituency, where everybody
who owns a DN in a personal capacity is welcome.

The CA/idno will be one of its constituent parties with its own rules.
People who are philosophically opposed to the democratic character of the
CA/idno are strongly encouraged to form their own parties in the constituency.

The history of the CA/idno had proven that such a step was necessary to
preserve the members’ energy that was being wasted by pointless infighting.
Individuals are, eh..individualistic.

Now, most of you will have seen or read the atlargestudy commission draft
final report.

It provides the individual DN holder with a whole SO for themselves and at
least 6 Board seats.

Why do I still think that the DNSO and its NC is well worth saving?

I have posted my reasoning on the GA list: in a nutshell, such an SO cannot
produce anything on its own. Policy advice to the Board will not have the
benefit of being forced through a consensus process with other interests.
It will be sterile, having been discussed by Individual DN holders for IDNH
ers.
The DNS stakeholder groups need to interact with each other to thoroughly
understand each others concerns and produce consensus or compromise.

The policy advice of a lone SO is likely to be contrary to the advice that
the Board will receive from the other SO’s and…..the at Large directors
will simply be outvoted. Time and again.
Such a situation can not last long.

Interest in being an at large member, and pay a fee for the privilege, will
disappear quickly.

Being an at Large director will be an exercise in frustration at best.

We need a DNSO, and we need to make it into a useful body for the Board.
We also need a DNSO as a proving ground, where the candidate at large Board
members can show what they really stand for. Without this, the proposed
regional councils may just become fora where candidates will do some brief
grandstanding against other candidates without actually dealing with the
real issues that need to be worked out in open discussion with other
constituencies.

The IDNH reps want to do real work participating in the fascinating work
of Icann.
Thank you, Mr Chair, for giving me the opportunity to speak.

* * *

This is the interpretation of the real-time scribe:

Individuals Constituency - Teernstra

1. http://www.idno.org/iccharter.htm
2. Reaction to reports more important that what he prepared initially.
3. Issue of minority board members.
4. Singapore: announcement of top-down DNSO approach. Way to make it work: establish a voluntary policy that people would follow. Has not gained enough traction. Incredible disillusionment. Membership groups not recognized. ICANN Board has not received substantial policy advice for over a year.
5. DNSO worth rebuilding and saving. All stakeholders can battle over policies and issues and send recommendations to the Board.
6. Board needs advice that involves all elements of the discussion, including compromises. DNSO conceived to be the consensus-building body.
7. Three seats could be reassigned to the Individuals’ Constituency. Proposal for such a Constituency set forth (Charter posted online at www.idno.org/ICCharter.htm).
8. Request for support and signatories.
9. Infighting wasting time of participants.
10. DNS stakeholder groups need to interact with one another. Policy advice of a lone SO is likely to be different from advice to the Board from other lone SOs.
11. Fee for At Large membership a bad idea. (remark: this is not what I argued: I said interest in being an at large member will disappear when your Board Reps will always be outvoted. The fee is just an extra argument.) And serving as an At Large Director will be an exercise in frustration.
12. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.