[ga] DNSO NC TF on Structure-Discussion paper

["DNSO Secretariat" <DNSO.secretariat@dnso.org>]

DNSO NC TF on Structure

Discussion paper
Draft outline analysis of the ALSC final report proposals according to the
criteria specified in the terms of reference draft version2


1. Key proposals of the ALSC November 2001 report
§         Define potential electorate as individual domain name holders
§         Establish an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALSC) to organise
that electorate
§         Fund the ALSO via membership dues as a condition of voting
§         Establish 6 ICANN regions
§         Elect 6 At-Large Board directors with 3 year term
§         Elect one 12 member ALSO Council (two per region)
§         Hold regional elections for 3 international posts and 3 regional
posts
§         Post no 1 (most votes) elected as At-Large Board director
§         Post no 2 and 3 (second and third highest votes) elected to ALSO
Council.
§         No 2 through no 6 regional winners form 5 member Regional Council.
§         Hold first elections in 2002.
§         ALSO provides consensus-based policy advice within ICANN's
mission.
§         Use Registrars as conduit to reach the potential electorate.
§         Review after two election cycles (6 years or 2008).

2. Evaluation against established criteria

Criteria     and        Evaluation

1. the efficacy of policy making within the DNSO

Criteria - degree of formal interaction between stakeholders
Evaluation -   Low. Compared with an individual domain name holders
constituency within the DNSO, the evaluation is negative.

Criteria - quantity of predicted unique issues of a new SO outside the
competence of DNSO versus issues within competence of DNSO
Evaluation - Low. There will be high overlap between issues discussed by an
ALSO with those of the DNSO
.
Criteria - mechanisms for cross-SO communication
Evaluation - Uncertain. No mechanisms are proposed. There will be membership
overlap and so informal cross communication. There will probably be a need
for formalised mechanisms.

Criteria - effect on the DNSO consensus process.
Evaluation - High. The ALSO provides the organisation of individuals and is
an enabler of consensus. The DNSO could use this input as part of its
consensus process.

2. the efficacy of ICANN decision making

Criteria- the ability of each proposal to generate valid consensus-based
policy making
Evaluation - Uncertain. The ALSO will enhance consensus within itself but
not per se within the ICANN community.

Criteria - possibility of the Board receiving contradictory advice from its
SOs and the impact on resolution mechanisms
Evaluation - High. Today the policy areas of the three SOs are distinct.
With an ALSO feeling able to comment on all ICANN policy areas  they may
conflict with each of the three existing SOs.

Criteria -  likely financial and representational robustness of any SO
Evaluation - Uncertain. The real test of individuals interest in at-large
will be when members are asked to pay to vote.

Criteria - likelihood of the proposal to achieve adequate, balanced and fair
stakeholder representation on the Board
Evaluation - High. The proposed ALSO structure should produce better
at-large representation than the status quo (subject to the financial
question above.) There will be one additional at-large member than the
status quo.



--
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