ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[nc-str]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[nc-str] Where should policy making happen?


Dave, thank you for your comments on policy making and potential overlaps.
You propose : "there is no reason an organisation can not have a dual role within ICANN generally and also within the DNSO. .... 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."
 
Lets us take this further and propose the following structure consistent with option 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."
 
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).
 
Comments please on this practical scenario based on Dave's proposal above.
 
Philip
 


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>