[ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN committee recommends voting restrictions,fewer At-Large di rectors

[Joop Teernstra]

At 01:08 1/09/01, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:

>         In fact, we can safely assume that a set of at-large directors 
> elected by Internet users would *not* be homogenous.

Quite so. FUD about capture is just that.
This is my own take on the proposed new structure (which does not have much 
structure at all), that I just sent to comments at atlargestudy.org

Dear ALSC,

I read the study report only after arriving in Montevideo.

While it is pleasing to me personally to see Individual Domain Name 
Registrants finally recognized as significant stakeholders worthy of Board 
representation, the proposal to restructure the at-large membership into a 
Support Organization all by itself, needs to be examined closely for 
long  term effectiveness as an ICANN advisory body.

I understand that expediency has played a large role in restricting the at 
large membership to Domain name Holders.
In itself, this is an approach that I have even recommended in the early 
stages of the MAC.

Other users, who do not currently own Domain Names, have only the 
relatively low barrier of registering one in order to become  members of 
this SO.  Candidate Directors are likely to address issues that concern 
users at large, not just DN holders.

So far, so good.

What concerns me most is the *sterility* in output of this new at-largeSO 
council as far as policy advising is concerned.
An SO is a policy advising Body, with rights to Board seats. An at large 
users SO council  will need  lively discussions with opposing viewpoints in 
order to produce policy advice that has already been struggled-out.

At Board level, such discussion will be out-of-place and too late.

The new  at large directors will be Vint's "predictable" minority, often to 
be outvoted on policies, that have been initiated and negotiated in the DNSO

On its own, with only irrelevant regional divisions to address, an 
atLargeSO council is doomed to be sterile in its output.

What is needed is a vibrant, active and lively DNSO Names Council, with a 
proper balance of Registrant interests represented.
It is here that the Individual Domain Name Holders can work together on 
reasonable and sustainable policies with the IP lobby and the Registration 
Industry.

This will result in advice for ICANN policies that are well balanced and 
sustainable.

THEREFORE, let the ALSC proposal not be used as an argument to keep the 
Individual Registrants out of the DNSO.

On the contrary, let the departure of the ccTLD's be the opportunity to 
give these vacated Names Council seats to the Individual Registrants' 
Constituency.

This will result in a much better balanced DNSO, that  can finally function 
as the policy advisory body that it was intended to be.

Some people will say, hey, you guys can't get two bites from  the cherry. 
This needs to be considered
I don't have the mandate of my members to negotiate, as there has no time 
yet for members consultation, debate and voting.

But I see possibilities of horse trading for  with the new  ccSO .





>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss