<html>
Dear Raul,<br>
I am afraid there is no attachment. Could you please provide the URL of
Philps text? Or the text itself in plain ASCII?<br><br>
As far as your question is concerned, David's patch seems to be a good
complex solution to address Joe Sims' complexification of a simple thing.
On the paper it is actually creating an Individual Domain Name Holder
constituency electing its own 6 BoD Members. This would be a brilliant
short-cut to the global problem provided the ICANN dropped the IANA
functions.<br><br>
Let understand it. ICANN is both a tiny element into the management of
the Internet through the IANA functions and a protector of the gTLD
Registrar industry. The problem is:<br>
- ICANN uses its IANA privileges to protect that industry, to the
detriment of all the others <br>
- to be in a position to do it, ICANN makes believe the IANA is far more
important than it really is, unbalancing the ccTLDs and blocking the
internet in its limited features. <br><br>
So we have to chose. Either the ICANN is the shell for the IANA functions
and the @large are every Internet participant who want to participate,
the professional problems of the Registrars being addressed somewhere
else. Or the ICANN is the protector or the gTLDs and the @large are their
customers but the IANA functions must go and be managed
elsewhere.<br><br>
If the ICANN is the protector of the unnecessary registrar industry the
unbalance of the ALSC into the DNSO is acceptable. If the ICANN is the
IANA function manager and wants to continue its mission creep, the IPv6
matter is far more complex and commercially and internationally
important, and the ALSC implication in the ASO more important. The
Standalone User System architecture is network wise, business wise and
economically wise far more important than IPv6 and makes the ALSC
involvement into the PSO still far more important. That the DNSO has not
perceived this need is normal because it is DNS oriented. The Staff too
as they ignore everything about Internet and believe data are exchanged
on legal yellow pad sheets. That the IETF does not warn the BoD is only a
result of the sclerosis of some IETF people and the feelings of the
others about ICANN. Never the less here is the situation. Permitting the
ALSC to take an unbalanced importance into the DNSO only and not in ASO
and PSO is a very poor move in the interest of the ICANN.<br><br>
We have to realize that the current situation cannot and will not last
for a long. The recent sunrise scandals, the TLD management, the ICANN
budget, the lack of observed lack of utility of the ICANN, the lack of
any achievement in the interest of the users, the blockade of network
innovation, the risks of instability, .org and plan B, the Verisign
attitudes, Whois, and now WLS, etc. etc. will make Govs and market to
by-pass the ICANN. This has begun.<br><br>
Jefsey<br><br>
On 21:58 16/01/02, Raul Echeberria said:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Dear friends:<br><br>
The Chair of the Task Force, Philip Sheppard, offered a report draft to
comment.<br><br>
Please see attached the document.<br><br>
My first comments could be read in
<a href="http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00083.html" eudora="autourl">http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00083.html</a><br><br>
I'd like to call your attention in the Dave's (GA rep. in the TF)
proposal which have been included in the draft report by the chair with
this redaction.<br><br>
--------<br><br>
<font size=4>3. <b>Policy support to the Board</b>. Against an objective
to provide policy input to the Board, the TF recommends that the three
members of the proposed At-large administrative council are given
membership of the DNSO Names Council, and participate within that body
exercising voting and other policy-related privileges in the same way as
the three representatives of the DNSO constituencies. (The three
ALSO reps would have no vote in the election of DNSO Board members).
<br><br>
This solves at a stroke three issues:<br>
</font><font face="Wingdings" size=4>§<x-tab> </x-tab></font>the
likelihood of contradictory or confusing advise reaching the Board from
the DNSO and the ALSO<br>
<font face="Wingdings" size=4>§<x-tab> </x-tab></font>creating
a clear mechanism for ALSO/DNSO policy interaction. <br>
<font face="Wingdings" size=4>§<x-tab> </x-tab></font>avoiding
duplication by DNSO constituencies in policy work in both the DNSO and
ALSO.<br><br>
Mechanistic details:<br>
1. ALSO is formed and directly elects 6 Board members.<br>
2. ALSO also elects 12 member Administrative Council (as ALSC proposal
but with an administrative role to organise the SO and outreach downwards
on policy)<font size=4> <br>
</font>3. ALSO Administrative Council selects 3 members (or the 3 top
geographically diverse of the directly-elected council election list)
appointed to Names Council to input on policy matters. <br>
4. The individuals petitioning for an individual domain name holders
constituency within the DNSO are encouraged to participate in the ALSO
and become AL Administrative Council members and reps to the
NC.<font size=4> <br>
</font>5. The GA reverts to its intended role of uniting all DNSO
constituencies (and expands to include the AL Administrative Council and
NC reps).<font size=4> <br>
</font> <br>
---------<br><br>
It is a new proposal which should be discussed in the constituency. My
first reaction is that there is a confusion in relation with the role of
the AL membership and the Individual Domain Name Holders representation
in domain name's related matters.<br><br>
I suggest to read the concerns expressed by the IPC's representative
about this point in <br><br>
<a href="http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00082.html" eudora="autourl">http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00082.html</a><br><br>
<br>
Wait for your comments.<br><br>
Best Regards, <br><br>
Raul<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
</blockquote></html>