[ga] Structure Taskforce Update No 3

[David Farrar <david@farrar.com>]

DRAFT 4 OUT

Draft No 4 is now at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/doc00010.doc

QUORUM FOR ALSO

Draft 3 proposed a minimum 30,000 people have to join the ALSO befoe it could 
elect Board members etc.  In post http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-
str/Arc00/msg00073.html I suggested 1,000 or so would be a more appropriate 
level.  The reasoning being:

"The last election figures were inflated by a couple of countries
running campaigns which hopefully will not occur in future.  To get a
better idea of likely interest I would look at the North American
election.  One had a genuine range of views amongst candidates and no
nationalistic considerations.

In NA 3,449 voted.  There are over 150,000,000 Internet users in NA so
this is 0.0023%.

Now world wide there are around 500,000,000 Internet users so 0.0023%
is 11,500.  Now this is before you even take account of what effect a
fee and restricting to domain name holders will take.

I'd be thinking 1,000 - 2,000.  Now some may assert this is far too
low but in each constituency we have election where no more than 50
ever seem to vote.  100 perhaps at the most."

Draft 4 leaves open the question of quorum noting a possible range of 1,000 to 
30,000 with arguments for both.

GTLD POSITION

The gTLDs have posted comments at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-
str/Arc00/msg00078.html.  Their major thrust appears to be that many of the 
eixtsing constituencies should become full Supporting Organisations and ICANN 
needs to create a strong inter-SO organization to facilitate consensus-building 
across SO's 

I have queried how such an organisation would be different from the current 
Names Council.  Personally I am wary of giving the Board even more latitude to 
pick and choose from competing views but as the Board is happy to largely 
ignore the Names Council anyway this may not be such an issue.  Again feedback 
welcome on the issue of whether one should try to keep all domain name policy 
formulation within the DNSO.

NCDNHC POITION

They have made the point that if an ALSO is created it should be seen as having 
important differences with other SOs which are a collection of stakeholders in 
one particular area (names, addresses, protocols) - a point I agree with.

They have also made further comments at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-
str/Arc00/msg00083.html.  Concerns are raised about potential ALSO fees 
excluding members from less developed countries and also restricting ALSO 
membership to domain name holders (again both areas I agree with).

They are not at this stage keen on having the ALSO perform a dual role as an SO 
and also as a constituency within the DNSO but are condsultign internally on it.

IPC POSITION

Their foray is at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00082.html

They are concerned about organisation and financing of an ALSO and its 
potential for capture.  They also wish the report to focus on just the ALSO 
proposal and not any other re-allocation of seats.  Perhaps this means they 
support retaining 9 at large seats but I doubt it :-)

They are also oppossed to the ALSO having a role within the DNSO and performing 
the dual role of an individual's constituency.  They believe any IC must go 
through the process for new constuiencies (which I note no other has had to go 
through) now in place.  They haven't addressesed however whether they are happy 
to have the ALSO compete with the DNSO in providing policy advice to the Board 
on domain names.

They also believe that all domain name holders should be eligible to join the 
ALSO regardless of whether they are individuals or not.


As always feedback welcome.  I will be posting some further comments to the 
Taskforce list tonight once I return from seeing Lord of the Rings :-)  The 
full list archive is at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/

DPF

--
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