Re: [ga] the proposed at large SO, relevance for the DNS

["L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

Not a bad analysis, Joop.  The bottom line is that the ALSC has 
relegated the at-large to just another *sterile* advisory body, as you
said.  The at-large MUST have the nine originally mandated seats 
(or
half the board) and is concerned with much more than domain 
names. 
The imbalance has to be corrected or ICANN remains an 
illegitimate
entity.

And point two is that the Individual domain name holders MUST 
have its place in the DNSO, whether it is restrucutured with or 
without a names council.

I believe there can be a middle road between the two reports - 
NAIS and ALSC, but neither are complete, IMO.  There is much 
more to deal with.

Leah


On 7 Sep 2001, at 5:03, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> 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 .
> 

--
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