Re: [ga] Top Three Issues

["Peter Dengate Thrush" <barrister@chambers.gen.nz>]

----- Original Message -----
From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 10:18 AM
Subject: [ga] Top Three Issues


> As a sense of focus is important to any organization, I thank Rick for his
> suggestion.  My thoughts are focused on representational issues...
>
> snip >

> 3.  Our promised nine seat At-Large representation on the ICANN Board is
at
> risk.  Constituencies, like vultures, are lining up to feed on the carcass
of
> the At-Large.

With respect, I think you may be mistaken in asserting that we (the GA) were
promised these. The confusion which equates the At Large with this body make
debate difficult, and is easily turned to the advantage of others. Please
separate issues of importance to the GA of the DNSO from those of the @LM.

> Every one of these interest groups is offering up a plan to
> enhance their own representation at the expense of the At-Large (which has
> been denied by ICANN even its own website within which it may organize its
> opposition).
>

Let me correct the impression you may have of the ccSO*. It does not depend
on its acceptance on any "expense" to the ALSO. It has proceeded, so far,
without any specification that its Board Seats would be those of the
original 9. To be sure, a number of suggestions have floated, but the source
of the seats has always been a question for the Board in terms of its
overall re-structuring.

> The ICANN Board has called for comments on the ALSC Final report.  Within
> ICANN we are the only group that does not seek to profit at the expense of
> the At-Large.

Repetition of this does not make it so.
You should be aware that in our view, the At Large interests of registrants
in ccTLDs ( which interests we take to be in a White Paper Principles-based
ICANN) are being in many cases, and theoretically can be best provided for
by the ccTLDs, and to that extent there is an overlap if not a synergy
between the work of the ccSO and the ALSO.

>We have an obligation to defend the interests of the broader
> Internet community and must do so with an orchestrated campaign that
> demonstrates to this Board that we will not sanction abrogating the
> commitment made in our founding compact with the US government.

Again, I think this confuses the role of the GA with that of the At Large
movement.

There is no founding compact between the At Large Movement and the USG. The
initial Board of ICANN said it would develop a corporation which met the
principles of the White Paper. DoC drafted an MoU. That has been reported
against and augmented, with the time extended.

If the USG ever feels that the ICANN which eventually presents itself does
not meet the terms of the White Paper, or any new conditions mandated by the
USG before transfer of technical management of the Legacy Root's names and
numbers, it will seek to have ICANN make any necessary changes, or decline
to transfer.

Focusing on the details at the origin of this experiment will be of
historical interest only.

Regards



--
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