Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

[Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>]

Hello Roberto!

Roberto Gaetano wrote on 28.08.01, 17:09:37:
> What do GA members think? Does the idea of an ALSO obsolesce
> the request for an IDNH Constituency?

The idea should not obsolesce the request, but if the ALSO
should become reality (and I think that there are some good
reasons for that), the need for additional representation
of DN holders in another SO will at least be very different.
(The other way around: As long as there is no ALSO, the need
for individual domain name holders representation in the DNSO 
is great.)

Why do I think that an ALSO may make sense? What the user 
participation up till now lacked was mechanisms for aggregation.
Not only does the GA still not have a way to devise a motion
(which is the GA's fault, not ICANN's), the At Large membership 
list was instantly frozen, never updated or re-opened, so it 
never had much of a chance to organize. Neither all Internet 
users nor all domain name holders have exactly the same interests 
-- the GA exemplifies this truism. But this also applies 
e.g. to the registrars and doesn't prevent them from being 
heard. If an ALSO and regional sub-organizations are able 
to get the missing bottom-up participation and interest aggregation 
going, this would be tremendous progress.

Leah has argued that "by making the at-large an SO, [ICANN]
removes the 'membership' provision and the power of the 
at-large to influence policy decisions." 
I'm actually not so sure about the current and future power of 
the At Large to influence policy decisions. Frankly, the GA's 
power has been very low, and even the one of a single individual 
DN holders constituency /within/ the DNSO would have been rather 
weak. The At Large's power has been non-existent after the election
(and nobody has challenged the alleged violation of Californian
legal rights in the courts, so this seems rather a demand than 
a legal claim). It is a strengthening compared to the status quo, 
but may not be strong enough from my and/or your point of view. 
But don't underestimate the power of having your own organisation, 
even if it functions in an advisory (and electing!) capacity.


ALSO: only individual domain name holders? I think there are 
two roads to answering this, and both are not perfectly satisfactory. 
One is: How much impact have ICANN policy decisions on IP 
addressing and protocols had yet? Not too much, for various reasons; 
the pressure is on ICANN mainly because of the DNS. If this 
changes (probably rather in the IP address area than in the 
protocol area), we have to think again, but at the moment, the 
main IP address policy arenas seem to be elsewhere. 
  
The other one in the opposite direction: How difficult is it (and
will it be in the future) to get a domain name? There are at 
least some ccTLDs where you can get free domain names (with your 
name as admin). If e.g. IP address policy affects you, I would 
think that it's unlikely you're not affected by DNS policy and 
have no domain name. Even if you don't have it, you might get 
such a free one just to participate. We may have to 'think 
different' when it comes to Internet users affected by ICANN 
policy and living in poorer countries, but it wouldn't be impossible 
even if we use DN holders as the basic structure. Wolfgang
Kleinwächter mentioned on the icann-europe the possibility of
"a 'sponsorship system' for individuals in undereveloped regions 
(if individual users / domain name holders fulfill certain 
criteria their membership fee can be waved)?" Have a look at
ISOC's (sponsored) complimentary memberships to see that this
is happening. (http://www.isoc.org/isoc/membership/emember/)


Finally, the 6 vs. 9 question: This is a serious one, and there
are good reasons to keep the 50:50 balance, unless there are
additional mechanisms ensuring that the At Large cannot
simply be outvoted.

But let's discuss the issues separately and let's not bash the 
whole report just because of this. You may like the ALSO, but 
dislike its composition of DN holders. Or perhaps you like the ALSO 
and its composition, but dislike the number of Board seats. Or maybe
you dislike or like everything. But let's have a differentiated
debate on this! (Obviously, I have strayed from addressing
Roberto here... ;)

Best regards,
/// Alexander
--
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