[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[atlarge-discuss] Re: Spcl Attn Marilyn Cade to: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ALSC-Forum] ICANN Announcement - At-Large List Nam...

Danny and all stakeholders or interested parties,

  If the At-Large is to represent the/it's legitimate majority of the ICANN
BoD the answer to you question is rather obvious Danny.
So in that vain and to that point of interest.  Many of those "Groups"
which you listed below are either represented already by SO's or
constituencies.  However my question was originally directed
at Marilyn Cade, whom so far has not responded.  But I shall
try to answer your question again for the 3rd time as you seem
to be unable to comprehend my first two answers.  I shall do so
by indicating which "Groups" that are already represented
by their reasonable BoD members including the "Board Squatters"..
( See indications below.  Some with comments )

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> 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

  #'s 1 and 2 already have representation...

> 3.  Business Constituency
> 4.  ISPs

  Each should have one Board representative and also already have

> 5.  Intellectual Property Constituency
> 6.  Non-Commercial Constituency

  #'s 5 and 6 already have Board Representation...

> 7.  Root Server Operators

  No need for representation as this function is suppose to be done
by the IANA direction and therefore is a staff function...

> 8.  IETF

  The IETF is a standards organization.  It's members are included in
several constituency organizations already...  No specific Board seats
should be allocated for the IETF other than At-Large elected ones...

> 9.  ETSI
> 10.  IAB
> 11.  W3C

  Again 9 - 11 already covered in the At-Large BoD Seats or in existing
constituency/SO seats.

> 12. ITU-U
> 13. ISO
> 14.  ARIN
> 15.  RIPE NCC
> 16.  APNIC

  Same as #'s 9 - 11...

> 17.  Registrars

  Already represented.

> 18.  Resellers

  Would be covered in the At-Large seats...

> 19.  AFRINIC
> 20.  LACNIC

  Already covered.

> 21.  GAC

  The GAC is mainly a advisory body to the ICANN BoD...  No BoD seats
as a conflict of interest would ensue for already discussed and debated

> 22.  Registrants

  This is where the main short coming in BOD representation resides
along with users.  Hence the need for an At-Large and it's 9 BoD seats.

> 23.  Small Business

  Same as #22 above.

> 24.  NGOs
> 25.  Consumer Protection Groups
> 26.  Individuals

  Same as #22.

> 27.  CEO

  I already answered this specifically.  No BoD seat...

> 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?

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.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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