Re: [ALSC-Forum] Re: [ga] Top Three Issues

[Daryl Tempesta <lyradius@yahoo.com>]

Why are seats to be appointed by the board at all? It
seems that the proposed 1 seat for gTLDs should be at
least 2 and maybe 3 since this is where the public
focuses its position. Specifically the independent
domain owners are in the tens of millions and should
be better represented. Unless I have may facts mixed
up!

peace

> >
> > 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


--- Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> 
> Danny and all assembly members,
> 
> 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
> 
>   I hope that this is really not that seriously
> being considered.  If so it is
> still
> a huge departure from the polls taken on the ALSC
> forum as well as
> the general comments received there as well.  For
> the existing ICANN
> Board to appoint two or the At-Large BoD members
> seems to be
> a bit akin to nepotism or is at least very subject
> to it.
> 
> >
> >
> > 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.
> 
>   Hummm?  This comment seems to be a stark departure
> of just yesterday
> in your comments towards INEGroup.  Why is that
> Danny?
> 
> >
> >
> > 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
> 
> Regards,
> 
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k
> members/stakeholdes strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA
> Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> 
> 


=====
Daryl Tempesta
HotDot.com
288 Civic Center Dr
Scotts Valley, 95066
831-239-9656 (c)
831-439-9239 (h)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.
http://shopping.yahoo.com
--
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