Re: [ga] Structure Taskforce Update

[Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>]

Dear David,

thanks for your work in the TF!
The dual role model -- ALSO elects Directors, but works
on domain name policy issues within the DNSO framework
-- is, as Elisabeth has put it, elegant. The main problem
I see is the relation of domain name holders and other
individual participants. (Note: problem, not unsolvable 
problem!)

The ALSC "proposed individual domain name holders as one 
such defined community, and is soliciting ideas for additional 
definitions". (http://www.atlargestudy.org/statement_of_work.shtml).

The ALSO is supposed to play a *dual* role according to 
'option four' and Philip Sheppard's new discussion paper draft v3
(http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/doc00008.doc).
For *DNSO* purposes, an individual domain name holders
constituency is fine and needed. But the second role is 
the At Large for *ICANN* purposes. Which means: If the ALSO 
became an Domain Name Holders Org., it would be fitting for 
the DNSO, but too small for ICANN. If the ALSO became 
bigger and encompassed additional individual stakeholders, 
it /may/ become too big for the DNSO.

I could think of several possible answers: 

-- It doesn't matter, because people will care about "their" 
issues and interests anyway. It doesn't hurt the DNSO if
people not holding domains (yet interested in domain issues)
are participating in the ALSO part.

-- It doesn't matter, because most people care only about 
domain name issues. (Not so sure about that -- this might
change, so we should think about it.)

-- It does matter, and the ALSO members should have "tags":
The ICANN Board is elected by the wider group, the DNSO
issues are left to individual domain name holders. If you
are neither a member of any existing constituency nor an
individual domain name holder, you could still participate
via the GA, but not via the NC.

Philip Sheppard wants feedback latest January 15, so we
should give David some guidance what the GA thinks about
this.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

DPF wrote on 06.01.02, 21:28:11:
  [...]
> The TF Chair responded
> (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00070.html) and has
> put forward a scenario which is:
>
> 1. ALSO is formed and directly elects 5/6/9 Board members (as ALSC
> proposal but lets not argue about the number here)
> 2. ALSO also elects 10/12 member Administrative Council (as ALSC
> proposal but with an administrative role to organise the SO and
> outreach downwards on policy)
> 3. ALSO Administrative Council selects 3 members (or the 3 top
> geographically diverse of the directly-elected council election list)
> appointed to Names Council to input on policy matters. The 3 AL Names
> Council reps get full voting rights on policy issues on the NC (but do
> not vote at the annual election for DNSO Board members).
> 4. The individuals petitioning for an individual domain name holders
> constituency within the DNSO are encouraged to participate in the ALSO
> and become AL Administrative Council members and reps to the NC.
> 5. The GA reverts to its intended role of uniting all DNSO
> constituencies (and expands to include at least the AL Administrative
> Council and NC reps).
  [...]
--
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