[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: DannyYounger@cs.com
- Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ALSC-Forum] ICANN Announcement - At-Large List Nam...
- From: Jeff Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 16:30:23 -0700
- CC: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivered-To: mailing list email@example.com
- List-Help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-Post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-Subscribe: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:email@example.com>
- Mailing-List: contact firstname.lastname@example.org; run by ezmlm
- Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
- References: <email@example.com>
Danny and all stakeholders or interested parties,
> 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.
This is exactly right. And it is also fundamentally why the ALSC Final
report and these fundamental Principals are not inclusive enough to
meet the MoU requirements. Therefore in part why so many stakeholders
have now called for a rebid of the ICANN contracts of which the MoU
is part of those contracts along with the White Paper..
> 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.
Indeed in accordance with the Berlin "Principals of the At-Large" this statement
or observation could be very true. However the Berlin "Principals of an At-Large"
also do not independently exclude those stakeholders that are represented
by an SO or constituency presently... Hence those principals are incomplete
or inadequately delineated as was the ALSC Final Report. In addition
during the study period, several polls were taken. They clearly showed
that the ALSC final report was a non-starter, and that at least 9 BoD
seats must be elected by any proposed At-Large membership within ICANN
as well as being inclusive of any and all interested parties as the MoU and
White Paper require.
> 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 fact neither is or should be the case. The At-Large should ratify any
issue policies that effect any or all stakeholders/users...
> 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?
The current and past ICANN Boards (Interim included) all had or have
conflicts of interest by their very membership. That is a simple easily
identifiable fact. This however could be addressed but to date has not
> Finally, why should the At-Large necessarily hold 51% of the Board seats?
The answer here is simple and has been answered many many times already.
The vast majority of stakeholders/users cannot presently qualify for SO
membership or constituency membership and therefore remain underrepresented
or underrepresented on the ICANN BoD. Hence they make up actually
about as has been estimated about +80% of stakeholders/users...
> 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.
This is in part an invalid argument. Why? Well because if an AT-Large
is open to any and all stakeholders/users and allows for membership in
a constituency as well as an SO than there is no possibility for
disenfranchisement. However without an AT-Large that is open to
any and all stakeholders/users disenfranchisement is present in the
> Should the At-Large have nine seats if this means that the root server
> operators get none?
Of course not. And that is straw man and leading question...
> 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?
Again no. And again this too is a straw man and leading question...
> 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?
Management comes from staff not BoD members or At-Large members.
Hence this is really not a realistic concern...
> 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.
Very much agreed...
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com