Re: [wg-review] At large vs IDNHC

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> However the at large membership is not a constituency.  It has no
> methods by which to communicate with each other, it is not consulted
> on specific issues - all it does is elect five Board Members.

Don't forget that ICANN's management/staff has retained control of the
membership list, hence controlling the channels of communication through
which at-large members can organize outside the sight of, and potential
control of, management/staff.  So the at-large's ability to act in any
concerted way, unless corporate management approves, has been crippled.

> Now while this is very important it is not the same as being
> represented in the DNSO as a constituency where in theory DNS policy
> is meant to originate from.

Very true - the DNSO is the body in ICANN that has, in the words of the
bylaws "primary responsibility" for policy matters pertaining to the
domain name system.

The at-large has no such role.

> I believe it is entirely reasonable to want both an at large
> membership which elects 9 of the 19 Board places and an IDNHC
> constituency within the DNSO.

To my mind it is only only entirely reasonable, it is a necessity.

Don't forget, folks in all the other constituencies can also join the
at-large.  If the logic that is being used to block the individual domain
name holders constituency were applied to the other constituencies they
too would have to be dissolved because they are, under the rubric of that
logic, represented via the at-large.

		--karl--


--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html