Re: [ga] DNSO NC TF on Structure-Discussion paper

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 14:14:49 +0100, "DNSO Secretariat"
<DNSO.secretariat@dnso.org> wrote:

>
>DNSO NC TF on Structure
>
>Discussion paper
>Draft outline analysis of the ALSC final report proposals according to the
>criteria specified in the terms of reference draft version2
>
>
>1. Key proposals of the ALSC November 2001 report
>§         Define potential electorate as individual domain name holders
>§         Establish an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALSC) to organise
>that electorate
>§         Fund the ALSO via membership dues as a condition of voting
>§         Establish 6 ICANN regions
>§         Elect 6 At-Large Board directors with 3 year term
>§         Elect one 12 member ALSO Council (two per region)
>§         Hold regional elections for 3 international posts and 3 regional
>posts
>§         Post no 1 (most votes) elected as At-Large Board director
>§         Post no 2 and 3 (second and third highest votes) elected to ALSO
>Council.
>§         No 2 through no 6 regional winners form 5 member Regional Council.
>§         Hold first elections in 2002.
>§         ALSO provides consensus-based policy advice within ICANN's
>mission.
>§         Use Registrars as conduit to reach the potential electorate.
>§         Review after two election cycles (6 years or 2008).
>
>2. Evaluation against established criteria
>
>Criteria     and        Evaluation
>
>1. the efficacy of policy making within the DNSO
>
>Criteria - degree of formal interaction between stakeholders
>Evaluation -   Low. Compared with an individual domain name holders
>constituency within the DNSO, the evaluation is negative.
>
>Criteria - quantity of predicted unique issues of a new SO outside the
>competence of DNSO versus issues within competence of DNSO
>Evaluation - Low. There will be high overlap between issues discussed by an
>ALSO with those of the DNSO
>.
>Criteria - mechanisms for cross-SO communication
>Evaluation - Uncertain. No mechanisms are proposed. There will be membership
>overlap and so informal cross communication. There will probably be a need
>for formalised mechanisms.
>
>Criteria - effect on the DNSO consensus process.
>Evaluation - High. The ALSO provides the organisation of individuals and is
>an enabler of consensus. The DNSO could use this input as part of its
>consensus process.
>
>2. the efficacy of ICANN decision making
>
>Criteria- the ability of each proposal to generate valid consensus-based
>policy making
>Evaluation - Uncertain. The ALSO will enhance consensus within itself but
>not per se within the ICANN community.
>
>Criteria - possibility of the Board receiving contradictory advice from its
>SOs and the impact on resolution mechanisms
>Evaluation - High. Today the policy areas of the three SOs are distinct.
>With an ALSO feeling able to comment on all ICANN policy areas  they may
>conflict with each of the three existing SOs.
>
>Criteria -  likely financial and representational robustness of any SO
>Evaluation - Uncertain. The real test of individuals interest in at-large
>will be when members are asked to pay to vote.
>
>Criteria - likelihood of the proposal to achieve adequate, balanced and fair
>stakeholder representation on the Board
>Evaluation - High. The proposed ALSO structure should produce better
>at-large representation than the status quo (subject to the financial
>question above.) There will be one additional at-large member than the
>status quo.

Any feedback on this analysis is welcome.  Please note it is not a
position paper of the Taskforce but a paper drafted by the TF Chair as
a starting point.

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
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