[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ALSC-Forum] ICANN Announcement - At-Large List Nam...
- To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ALSC-Forum] ICANN Announcement - At-Large List Nam...
- From: DannyYounger@cs.com
- Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 15:06:01 EDT
- CC: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Delivered-To: mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org
- List-Help: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-Post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-Subscribe: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Mailing-List: contact email@example.com; run by ezmlm
Jeff Williams has asked three very important questions that really should be
given a fair amount of thought:
1.) Do you or do you not support an At-Large membership that is
inclusive of any and all stakeholders/users?
2.) Do you or you not support a At-Large that has a vote on any policy
issue that may effect any stakeholder/user?
3.) Do you or do you not support that any At-Large will elect at least
51% or 9 board seats?
In the "Principles of the At-Large Membership" as enumerated by the
Membership Advisory Committee http://www.icann.org/berlin/membership_rec.htm
, the very first principle states: "At-Large membership should primarily
represent those individuals and organizations that are not represented by the
Supporting Organizations (SOs)." The objective is clearly not to construct a
membership that is "inclusive of any and all stakeholders", but rather to
provide membership opportunities for those that are not *already* represented
via the SO structures. Just as the registrar constituency has the right to
reject all that are not registrars from their immediate group, so should it
be possible for the At-Large to reject as members any that are already
represented within the SOs. As such, the At-Large need not be "inclusive of
any and all" as Jeff would desire.
The matter of voting on policy issues is equally unclear. Is the At-Large
charged with establishing policy that is to be ratified by the Board, or does
the At-large only provide advice which may be rejected by the Board? In the
event that a Supporting Organization disputes the recommendations of the
At-Large (a quite probable event as the DNSO Names Council routinely disputes
the point of view of the membership of its General Assembly), where does
conflict resolution occur? Is it elevated to the Board level, or should
there be a structure created to attend to this probability?
Finally, why should the At-Large necessarily hold 51% of the Board seats?
The At-Large, just like all other participants in the ICANN process, is a
special interest group. Naturally, every special interest group believes
that it should be represented to the maximum degree possible on the ICANN
Board, but when you stack the deck in favor of any one group, you necessarily
disenfranchise others that are also vying for some measure of representation.
Should the At-Large have nine seats if this means that the root server
operators get none? Should the At-Large populate half of the Board if this
means that Intellectual Property Interests or Internet Service Providers get
absolutely no seats on the Board? Should the Board in fact be a model of
"representation", or should it reflect the necessary combination of skill
sets that are required to best manage the DNS resource?
The ALSC was supposed to provide us with a "clean sheet" study.
Unfortunately we never got such a study, and the important questions were
never asked, examined, or considered in light of the expected restructuring
of the organization. This would be a good time to re-evaluate long-held
positions and to ask whether there might not be merit in some reconsideration.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com