All the document is based in the evaluation
of the ALSC recommendations and not discuss them. The key mistake for me
is to consider the ALSO as other SO. The At Large Membership (some
persons prefer name it as ALSO) should not be a Supporting Organization.
The current three SO have their specific scope and the ALM is the opposite
, is a body of persons with generic interest in ICANN related matters.
My view is that the ALM should not assume
direct policy-making roles.
If we consider the ALM just as another
SO, then, most of the comments made in the section 4. “Impact analysis
- Evaluation against established criteria” could be valid, but due to the
fact that I disagree with this basic concept, then most of the comments
addressed in section 4 are wrong from my point of view.
I understand that you have focused the
document in the evaluation of the ALSC instead of discuss them.
I think that this format is very strict
and don't allow to see clearly the different points of view.
Conclusions:
I don't support the conclusions
included in this document with exception of point 5.1 . Is also important
to remark that as I have said before, I don’t subscribe what has been included
in the report as the “Key recommendation” what imply to absolutely change
the concept of the ALM transforming it in a single constituency inside
DNSO with the only difference that this constituency could elect
directly some board Directors.
Finally, I'd like to state that the level
of participation in the TF until now has been absolutely insufficient to
produce an official report.
Best Regards,
Raul