Re: [nc-str] Where should policy making happen?

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2001 15:33:08 +0100, "Philip Sheppard"
<philip.sheppard@aim.be> wrote:

>In the meantime I would like to discuss where one of the wider points may take us.

Sorry for delay but I did want to keep this useful discussion alive.

>1. Status quo - no ALSO, no individuals domain name holders constituency (IDNHC) within the DNSO. Result: lack of individuals' representation.

Indeed - it is welcome to have this deficiency of the status quo
represented.

>2. ALSO, no change DNSO. 
>Result: Board may get contradictory advise, DNSO role in policy weakened, relevance of today's GA uncertain.

Agreed - however this would be better than status quo in terms of
individual's having representation finally.

>3. ALSO, new IDNHC within DNSO
>Result: Board may get contradictory advise, DNSO role in policy weakened, GA reverts to its intended role as a unifying assembly, duplication of individuals voice in policy making.

Yep - some pluses and minuses.  It could be confusing as to whether
individual registrants should take part in the IDNHC or the ALSO to
influence domain name policy.

>4. Different ALSO (direct elections to board, but policy directed via the DNSO), otherwise no change DNSO
>Result: Board gets consistent advise, DNSO role in policy strengthened, GA reverts to its intended role as a unifying assembly.
>
>If this simple model is robust, then exploring what option 4 could mean at the practical level seems like a productive route? Comments.

This model is worth exploring - there is no reason an organisation can
not have a dual role within ICANN generally and also within the DNSO.
Note this could also mean that one could retain a ccTLD constituency
within the (g)DNSO and also have a ccSO?

It would have the benefits of not splitting what will be a limited
pool of individual volunteers between two separate organisations.

One would need to address whether the ALSO if it had a dual function
would also appoint three members of the Names Council as well as Board
members.  If you want the ALSO not to have a direct advisory role to
the Board at the least it should have representation within the DNSO
Names Council which remains the (theoretical) source of advice.

Also something which could be important is the definition of who may
belong to the ALSO and how this compares against a possible
registrants constituency.  The current proposal is that ALSO members
must be admin contact for a domain name which is quite different to
actually being an individual registrant.  


Oh and Happy New Year everyone


DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527