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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jamie and all stakeholders of interested parties,

  Now this is a very good and central point.  One I think that many, including
Danny seems to be missing or not understanding well...  Well done again
Jamie!  >;)

  In the view that produced the WHite Paper and the MoU, the stakeholders/users
have an equal standing in representation on the ICANN BoD or are suppose to.
The DNSO Constituency model for the DNSO was and remains a poor
method by which to achieve that representation which thus far been the
failed direction and the largest cause or the intractability and divisiveness
in the ICANN building process.  Therefore the only place or method
by which average stakeholders/users can be legitimately represented
on the BoD is an At-Large membership structure...

James Love wrote:

> 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?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

Regards,
--
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