Re: No Need For "At Large" DNSO membership (Was: Re: "constitutional protections")

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Fri, Nov 13, 1998 at 07:43:34AM -0400, J. William Semich (NIC JWS7) wrote:
> Hello;
> 
> This is an interesting proposal and worthy of consideration. However,
> before taking it to the next step of discussing how to implement it and
> what those DNSO "Constitutional Protections" might best be, I'd like to
> reopen discussion on the issue of At Large participation on the DNSO.
> 
> You are proposing 9 "At Large" members in the governing committee of
> DNSO. 
> 
> I propose zero "At Large" members.
> 
> An excellent proposal and argument *against* including At Large
> participation in DNSO was made just prior to the Barcelona meeting and
> I'd like to put it back on the table here. 

The way ICANN is currently structured, the DNSO is responsible for policy 
concerning DNS, and the ICANN board basically says 'yea' unless 
there is a good reason not to.  So without an At Large in the DNSO, 
there is no effective At Large representation in DNS matters. 

> The thinking is, that since there will be a *whole other SO* for "At
> Large" participation and representation on ICANN, our including another
> At Large mechanism in DNSO would be redundent and confusing. 

I agree that the situation is kind of confusing.  But the ICANN At
Large SO will have very little discretion in DNS matters.  I think it
is the At Large at the ICANN level that is redundant and confusing,
and, frankly, sort of useless.

OTOH, there really needs to be At Large representation at the DNSO 
level, because that is where the "rubber meets the road" as far as 
policy development is concerned.

> Lot's of questions and problems arise, not least of which is, how would
> you differentiate between the "At Large" participants in DNSO and the
> "At Large" participants in ICANN? How would their interests differ? How
> would their make up (their members and participants) differ? 
> 
> By definition, the actual nature of an "At Large" constituency would
> leave *both* groups open to participation by anyone - meaning each could
> (and would) have the same members, more or less.

This may not be true.  At large membership in ICANN could be 
restricted to large organizations who pay hefty fees, for example.

> I do not think this would be a good idea. I hope this inbred problem in
> the ICANN bylaws is discussed in the meetings with ICANN, its board
> members, and its president during the next several weeks.
> 
> Any one else have opinions on this matter?
> 
> Bill Semich (NIC JWS7)
> bsemich@mail.nu
> .NU Domain (Niue)
> Memberships: ISOC, ISP/C, APIA, APTLD, IATLD, PAB, Internet Users
> Society - Niue

-- 
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair			"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html