[ncdnhc-discuss] Structure TF.

[Jefsey Morfin]

Dear Raul,
I am afraid there is no attachment. Could you please provide the URL of 
Philps text? Or the text itself in plain ASCII?

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.

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:
- ICANN uses its IANA privileges to protect that industry, to the detriment 
of all the others
- 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.

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.

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.

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.

Jefsey

On 21:58 16/01/02, Raul Echeberria said:
>Dear friends:
>
>The Chair of the Task Force, Philip Sheppard, offered a report draft to 
>comment.
>
>Please see attached the document.
>
>My first comments could be read in 
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00083.html
>
>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.
>
>--------
>
>3. Policy support to the Board. 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).
>
>This solves at a stroke three issues:
>§       the likelihood of contradictory or confusing advise reaching the 
>Board from the DNSO and the ALSO
>§       creating a clear mechanism for ALSO/DNSO policy interaction.
>§       avoiding duplication by DNSO constituencies in policy work in both 
>the DNSO and ALSO.
>
>Mechanistic details:
>1. ALSO is formed and directly elects 6 Board members.
>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)
>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.
>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.
>5. The GA reverts to its intended role of uniting all DNSO constituencies 
>(and expands to include the AL Administrative Council and NC reps).
>
>---------
>
>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.
>
>I suggest to read the concerns expressed by the IPC's representative about 
>this point in
>
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00082.html
>
>
>Wait for your comments.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Raul
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20020118/a5288a65/attachment-0001.html>