Re: [ifwp] Re: Position of the SOs vis-a-vis ICANN

[Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>]

At 02:22 PM 11/28/98 , Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>I have the impression that some of the issues debated in the DNSO (I
>cannot speak for the others, because I didn't participate at all) are
>helpful in better defining the topics for the ICANN debate as well.
>For instance, the discussion we had in Barcelona/Monterrey (and on the open
>discuss@dnso.org list) on membership allowed us to proceed with some ideas
>that will turn out handy in the debate on ICANN general membership. I don't
>see completely separate process, but a set of converging processes.


Hi Roberto,

I think you have said this very nicely.

IMHO, the next major question on the horizon is membership.  One way 
to frame this issue is as follows:

GOAL:	To prevent capture, to provide a flexible structure that does 
not entrench existing constituencies, and to provide user representation 
to balance the influence of commercial/political interests.

The current ICANN by-laws address this issue by mandating balanced 
representation on the ICANN board (9 at-large members, 9 SO members, 
and an appointed president).

BWG, ORSC and others have argued that this is too much influence for 
the existing constituencies.  First, because there is a conflict of 
interest when SO's recommend policy, then vote on it.  Second, because 
the user communities are undeveloped, extremely diverse, and unlikely 
to be able to counter a coordinated effort by the SO's.

The current argument in support of this structure is that each SO will 
have user's representation to moderate this effect.

OTHER APPROACHES

The question is not whether there will be user representation (UR), 
it's more a question of where to place it in the organizational 
structure, and how to weight it.  On one end of the spectrum, we have 
UR *only* in the SO's, without any representation in the ICANN Board.  
On the other, we have UR *only* in the ICANN Board, without any 
representation in the SO's.

Currently, the ICANN by-laws have 47% UR on the ICANN Board, and the 
last I heard, the DNSO has less than a 20% UR in the DNSO.  I don't 
believe that this is a very stable structure, and I do believe that 
this structure must be changed.  

As you have correctly pointed out, these decisions can't be made 
without a coordinated approach, one that looks at balancing UR between
the ICANN Board and the SO's, given the goals outlined above.


Respectfully,

Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.  
404-943-0524  http://www.iperdome.com