[registrars] ALSC - My Two Cents

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>]

One of the topics of discussion for the registrar constituency in Montevideo
is the At-Large Study Committee report. I have done a cursory review of the
document and I believe there is the potential for the constituency to
increase its present Board representation.

This is my personal preliminary opinion and I just offer it for general
discussion. The secret decoder ring for how the cards will fall in the final
ALSC is the following passage: “Based on our view of ICANN as a balance
among developers, providers and users, we would recommend that the At-Large
membership select a third of ICANN's Board.”

Assuming that the Board remains at 18 members that translates into 6 Board
seats for each of the designated groups developers, providers, and users.
Currently the ASO and PSO have 6 Board seats. I believe that the argument
could be made that the ASO and PSO can be classified as “developers.” Some
people that I have discussed the ALSC with have suggested that only the PSO
belongs in the developer pigeonhole. Assuming that the ASO & PSO are
classified as developers under my model that would allow each current SO to
maintain their current Board representation.

Defining the “provider” category is where there is the potential for the
registrar constituency to obtain significant Board representation. For the
purposes of my analysis, I submit that the registrars, gTLDs, and ccTLDs are
the "providers." Although there are potential 6 Board seats for the
registrars to vie for, I believe that a more likely result would be that
each provider within the class: registrars, gTLDs, and ccTLDs, would each be
allotted 2 Board seats.  This model would work very nicely with the ccTLDs
that are currently seeking to form their own SO and obtain direct Board
representation. My proposal allows the ccTLDs to have their concerns
addressed while keeping them a happy member of the ICANN family. This is a
consideration that cannot be under estimated.

Defining the “user” category is where things will get very interesting and
potentially ugly. A result of the aforementioned restructuring would be the
potential dismantling of the DNSO Names Council. This now leaves the
Business, ISP, Intellectual Property, and Non-Commercial Constituencies
along with the “at large” members vying for representation within the “user”
category.  I believe that Business, ISP and IP Constituencies will
vehemently oppose this potential reclassification based upon past
ideological differences with the non-commercial constituency and certain
members of the General Assembly. However, dividing the 6 "user" Board seats
between business and non-business users is not so unreasonable. The IP,
Business and ISP constituencies could each be afforded one of the three
business Board seats, while the non-commercial constituency would get three.

The reason that I believe that my hypothetical analysis is possible is
because it allows all the “active interests” to lay claim to one direct
Board seat. Under my analysis consider the following:
·	the ASO & PSO maintain their current representation – no problems there;
·	the Registrars, gTLDs, and ccTLDs, ICANN’s principal fee collectors, get a
significant increase in Board representation and would seemingly support
this scheme;
·	the business, IP and ISP Constituency may have an initial aversion to
being classified with the non-commercial and individual domain name holders
in the “user” category, however, I believe that the potential to have three
direct seats at the Board level may address these initial concerns.

I realize that my analysis all but does away with the original intent to
have 9 at-large directors elected to represent the Internet stakeholders’
interest, but since I attended my first DNSO formation meeting in
Washington, DC in January of 1999 a lot has changed.

One topic that I also believe needs to be discussed, but which I do not have
time, is the use of the registry/registrar infrastructure in connection with
any potential at-large election.

Again is just my personal opinion and something that I thought I would share
with the constituency.

Good night,

Mike