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

[edyson@edventure.com (Esther Dyson)]

Some interesting points to pay attention to.

Some  further questions:

How do "users" count themselves?  Am I a different person with regard to
(say) addresses vs. as an At Large member? How are the users who join
(whatever that means) an SO different from those who join the AL membership?
As a user, how do I want my influence mediated? Would I like my ISP to
represent me in the AL membership in some way?  Is membership a burden that
I *want* to cede to someone who will go to (boring) meetings on my behalf,
study the issues, etc.?  How are my interests similar to an different from
those of other users? 

On Roberto's earlier point re timing, all these discussions are proceeding
in parallel and can probably enrich one another.  I doubt the  call for SO
proposals is going to contain enough constraints to make any of these
conversations moot.  

Esther Dyson



 At 03:25 PM 11/28/98 -0500, Jay Fenello wrote:
>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
>
>


Esther Dyson			Always make new mistakes!
chairman, EDventure Holdings
interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
edyson@edventure.com
1 (212) 924-8800
1 (212) 924-0240 fax
104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
New York, NY 10011 USA
http://www.edventure.com

High-Tech Forum in Europe:  October 1999, Budapest
PC Forum: 21 to 24  March 1999, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona 
Book:  "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"