Re: [ga] ALSC report released

["L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

      Well, here we go.  First reduce the number of board seats for the at-large and limit membership to domain name holders...  This is right off the top, without having to read the report in depth, the scope of the at-l
arge is reduced and changed, defeating its meaning.

Are the only stakeholders in the at-large domain name registrants?  Not by a long shot.  ICANN encompasses much more than domain names and registrants are by far NOT the only stakeholders.  What about IP addressing and pr
otocols?  What about users who do not have domain names but are affected by ICANN policies?  There have already been cases of suits over 3LDs.  These are domains that are established many times by ISPs for use by their cu
stomers.  These "customers" would have no voice in the at-large.  By limiting membership to domain name registrants, it cuts out a huge community of stakeholders - users of the internet in the millions and soon to be in t
he billions.

By reducing the number of board seats, the power brokers succeed mightily in reducing the purpose of the White Paper and the purpose of establishing ICANN in the first place.  It is a further perversion, and a grave one.

By making the at-large an SO, it removes the "membership" provision and the power of the at-large to influence policy decisions.  SOs function in an advisory capacity.  The at-large must be a membership body within ICANN,
 with all rights of membership, to include ALL stakeholders.

The ALSC speaks of the cost of having an open membership.  Establishing a $10 or $15/year membership fee would certainly cover those costs.  In addition, registries and registrars could add $.05 to the amount paid to ICAN
N targeted specifically for the at-large.  There is no excuse to limit the at-large due to finances.  It is supposed to be a bottom-up organization, remember?  That makes the at-large a priority, not an after thought.

This is not an unexpected result of the ALSC, since there is no representation of at-large membership on the committee and the at-large was not able to actively participate on any meaninful level as a result.

Anything less than an open at-large membership with membership rights in the non-profit corporation as defined by law is unaccepable.  Restricting membership to domain name holders is a further perversion since there are 
many more stakeholders in the internet community.

I hope there will be a groundswell of participation to ensure that ALL stakeholders are represented in the at-large and that "membership" will be a mandatory provision for those stakeholders.  If not, the White Paper will
 have been defeated and ICANN will still be ruled by a 2/3 majority 
of special interests - not those of the at-large.  IOW, nothing will 
have changed.
 
Leah

On 28 Aug 2001, at 6:34, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> http://www.atlargestudy.org/draft_final.shtml
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html