RE: [council] Individuals' Constituency -- The way forward

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>]

OK, I see, you are referring to the ALSC structure.
Yes, I believe (am not sure) that under that structure
At-large councils do have policy development functions.

But that is just a proposal, and has no official status
and perhaps not even widespread support. 

From my point of view, it would be better to rectify a 
longstanding mistake (exclusion of individuals) as
rapidly as possible, and then alter the structure AFTER
a new @large system is in place. (Which, of course,
may never happen!).


>>> "Antonio Harris" <harris@cabase.org.ar> 10/04/01 11:22AM >>>
Milton,

Thank you for clarifying this. As I understand things,
what you say is true today, but as I recall from the
At Large Study Committee recommendations, a
structure of regional councils plus a "top" council
is envisioned in the proposed SO. If they are not
to be a policy formulation body, then what will their 
function be ?

Perhaps, before committing to an IDHN constituency,
it might be prudent to see what comes of this
initiative, which, of course would modify the
existing bylaws and articles as they stand today.

(Just a thought, not a motion )

Tony Harris

----- Mensaje original ----- 
De: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>
Para: <harris@cabase.org.ar>; <DannyYounger@cs.com>; <council@dnso.org>
Enviado: Jueves 4 de Octubre de 2001 12:06
Asunto: RE: [council] Individuals' Constituency -- The way forward


Tony:
In ICANN's structure, the Supporting Organizations
(DNSO, ASO, PSO) are supposed to initiate policy in certain 
defined areas (domain names, addresses, protocols, respectively).
You might review the articles and by-laws in this regard.
The At-Large is a completely different domain.

Thus, an individual's constituency within the DNSO is intended to
give individuals a voice in the initial formulation of policies 
related to domain names. Just as businesspeople, trademark
holders, ccTLD registrants, and ISPS (who can also vote for At-Large 
Board members) are currently given a voice.

The At-Large is not a policy formulation body. 
It merely elects board members. It has no special role
under ICANN's articles and by-laws in the formation
of domain name policies specifically. Its purview includes
protocols and addresses as well as domain names.

Does that answer your question?

>>> "Antonio Harris" <harris@cabase.org.ar> 10/04/01 10:46AM >>>

Whereas I have no objection to the idea of individual name
holders being adequately represented in the ICANN structure
(I happen to be one myself), my question is: If an IDNH
constituency is implemented, who will the proposed
At Large SO be representing ?