Re: [ga] GA position on the Structure TF report

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Danny and all Assembly members,

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> In a message posted to the IDNO list David Farrar writes:  "There is no way
> at all any individuals constituency would be able to raise funds to match
> what the business groups pay.

  I can attest that this thought is incorrect.  [INEGroup] has raised
significant funds for it's members.  We are not however a ICANN
Constituency, not given the current atmosphere and flawed structure
are we interested in becoming a ICANN Constituency.  The current
funds available within our organization are fairly significant (Appox
$18.5m presently).

>  If there is ever an individual's constituency
> the DNSO will have to recognise that individuals pay most of their money
> through the registrars, ISPs and registries,

Yes but only if they are an ICANN Constituency member.

>

>

>  This is one reason I think the
> possibility of having the ALSO perform a dual role as an individuals
> constituency within the DNSO has merit.  It will possibly avoid serious
> duplication of expenses."

  Duplication of expenses is a minor issue IMHO.  Rather it is more
important that individual stakeholders regardless of their status have
representation within the DNSO.  Currently with the present structure
of the DNSO, this is not possible nor has it been seriously addressed.
Hence it is obvious that the GA is essential as it is the only place
where individual stakeholders have any voice or vote in the determining
of DNS policy presently.  That proposed ALSO would seek to severely
limit representation to Domain Name Holders only and a limited number of
them as well as Inclusive and Competitive Registries and root structure
Domain Name holders are not considered acceptable under the current
ICANN staff's scheme for the ALSO.  This is unexceptable and
unrepresentative as a result.

> The latest recommendation from the IPC to the NC Structure Task Force Policy
> stipulates that ALSO input to the Board is only to be channeled by way of the
> DNSO (in which the ALM would have a mere three votes in a 24-member council),
> and further, "no policy recommendations would come from the ALSO separately".
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00086.html
>
> This proposition is a blatant attempt to attack the At-Large and should not
> be supported by the GA's representative.

  Agreed.  The ALSO should be a separate organization.

>
>
> --
>

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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