<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga-icann] the at large and the DNSO
Maybe this is the place to discuss what I have just sent to
comments@atlargestudy.org
I have sent the following to comments@atlargestudy.org
Dear ALSC,
I read the study report only after arriving in Montevideo.
While it is pleasing to me personally to see Individual Domain Name
Registrants finally recognized as significant stakeholders worthy of Board
representation, the proposal to restructure the at-large membership into a
Support Organization all by itself, needs to be examined closely for
long term effectiveness as an ICANN advisory body.
I understand that expediency has played a large role in restricting the at
large membership to Domain name Holders.
In itself, this is an approach that I have even recommended in the early
stages of the MAC.
Other users, who do not currently own Domain Names, have only the
relatively low barrier of registering one in order to become members of
this SO. Candidate Directors are likely to address issues that concern
users at large, not just DN holders.
So far, so good.
What concerns me most is the *sterility* in output of this new at-largeSO
council as far as policy advising is concerned.
An SO is a policy advising Body, with rights to Board seats. An at large
users SO council will need lively discussions with opposing viewpoints in
order to produce policy advice that has already been struggled-out.
At Board level, such discussion will be out-of-place and too late.
The new at large directors will be Vint's "predictable" minority, often to
be outvoted on policies, that have been initiated and negotiated in the DNSO
On its own, with only irrelevant regional divisions to address, an
atLargeSO council is doomed to be sterile in its output.
What is needed is a vibrant, active and lively DNSO Names Council, with a
proper balance of Registrant interests represented.
It is here that the Individual Domain Name Holders can work together on
reasonable and sustainable policies with the IP lobby and the Registration
Industry.
This will result in advice for ICANN policies that are well balanced and
sustainable.
THEREFORE, let the ALSC proposal not be used as an argument to keep the
Individual Registrants out of the DNSO.
On the contrary, let the departure of the ccTLD's be the opportunity to
give these vacated Names Council seats to the Individual Registrants'
Constituency.
This will result in a much better balanced DNSO, that can finally function
as the policy advisory body that it was intended to be.
Some people will say, hey, you guys can't get two bites from the cherry.
This needs to be considered
I don't have the mandate of my members to negotiate, as there has no time
yet for members consultation, debate and voting.
But I see possibilities of horse trading for with the new ccSO .
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
www.idno.org
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-icann@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-icann" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|