Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ALSC-Forum] ICANN Announcement - At-Large List Nam...

["James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>]

Danny, In my thinking, who is on the board depends upon what ICANN is.  If
ICANN is an all powerful God like power for the Internet, you have to think
hard about how many seats you give to a narrow set of E-Commerce firms.  If
it mostly regulates registries, then you have one set of concerns, and we
care about user interests being represented.  If it deals only with a
minimal set of uniqueness and coordination issues, in a non--coercive way, a
lot of us don't even bother with ICANN.

Jamie

----- Original Message -----
From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
To: <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
Cc: <forum@atlargestudy.org>; <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2002 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ALSC-Forum] ICANN Announcement -
At-Large List Nam...


>
> Jeff,
>
> In response to the questions, "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?",  you
have
> responded:  Of course not.  And that is straw man and leading question...
>
> So let's look at this question a little bit more... If the At-Large gets
nine
> seats, who will get the remaining seats?
>
> 1.  gTLDs
> 2.  ccTLDs
> 3.  Business Constituency
> 4.  ISPs
> 5.  Intellectual Property Constituency
> 6.  Non-Commercial Constituency
> 7.  Root Server Operators
> 8.  IETF
> 9.  ETSI
> 10.  IAB
> 11.  W3C
> 12. ITU-U
> 13. ISO
> 14.  ARIN
> 15.  RIPE NCC
> 16.  APNIC
> 17.  Registrars
> 18.  Resellers
> 19.  AFRINIC
> 20.  LACNIC
> 21.  GAC
> 22.  Registrants
> 23.  Small Business
> 24.  NGOs
> 25.  Consumer Protection Groups
> 26.  Individuals
> 27.  CEO
>
> How exactly do you propose to slice the pie?  Which groups will have to
> participate within umbrella organizations?  How will you ensure that each
> such umbrella organization has an equal degree of representation (so that
one
> isn't "stronger" than another)?  Is such equality of representation
> necessary?  For example, should the ccTLDs have as many directors on the
> Board as root server operators?  Should either, in fact, be directly
> represented on the Board?
>
>
>
>
>



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de