Re: [ga] Top Three Issues

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Full support of Danny's  attitude.
Our common threat is the gTLD DN ownership leading to a commercial capacity 
to capture the @large by the gTLD. Responding that ccTLD may represent the 
@large instead of locally cooperating with them is another way of trying to 
capture them. Why do we feel that what is considered is not so much the 
good of the @large but the number of their seats?
jfc

At 06:57 03/12/01, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
>Peter,
>
>Thank you for your comments.  The issue of representation at the Board level
>is of concern to everyone in the ICANN community.  At MdR, I had occasion to
>speak with a Board member who indicated that the following was under serious
>discussion:
>
>5 seats for the At-Large (by region)
>2 seats for the At-Large (appointed by 2/3 of the Board)
>2 seats for the PSO
>2 seats for the ASO
>1 seats for the ccSO
>1 seat for the gTLDs
>1 seat for the registrars
>3 seats split between ISP, Non-Commercial, IP, and Business (on a rotating
>basis)
>1 seat appointed by ISOC
>
>Doubtless there are many possible options, but each that I have evaluated
>denies the full complement of nine seats for the At-Large that was promised
>to the Internet Community.  By arguing that the ccTLDs require an SO with at
>least one Board Seat, your associates have opened the door for registrars and
>the gTLDs to also argue that they too deserve a Board seat, and this has led
>to every other constituency arguing that they should similarly not be denied.
>  In short, you bear a certain responsibility for the structural
>reconsiderations that are now being envisiged.
>
>But please understand that we don't hold this against you, as the right to
>self-organization is paramount and well respected by members of this Assembly.
>
>Similarly, be clear about this point:  the bulk of the members in the General
>Assembly will become the members of the At-Large as soon as it is
>constituted.  While the ccSO will have a solitary Board seat, the At-Large
>will have a substantially greater degree of representation, and it will
>choose to support those that have shown an affinity for the positions
>represented by its loyalists in the GA.
>
>You have stated, "Please separate issues of importance to the GA of the DNSO
>from those of the @LM".  At this point in time, I no longer believe that such
>separation is possible.  This ICANN is an evolving organization wherein
>admittedly structures may change, but the participants will not.  The
>participants in the GA will become the participants in the At-Large, and we
>will assuredly remember those that gave the GA short shrift and those that
>respected the need for full and proper representation in the ICANN process.
>
>We have respected the contributions and participation of the ccTLDs within
>this Assembly, and many of us would like to see their efforts come to
>fruition.  So please understand that when we focus on the details at the
>origin of this experiment, we similarly act based on self-organizing
>motivations.
>
>We choose to focus on the promises made by Esther Dyson that we expect to be
>upheld.  Putting it within a context that should be familiar to you, if IANA
>were to break its promises and commitments regarding redelegations that were
>made in good faith a few years ago, and suddenly embark on a course of action
>to deny your members their participatory rights, you at the very least would
>take umbrage if not offense at such action.
>
>We have similar sensibilities.
>
>Best wishes,
>Danny younger
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" 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