Re: [atlarge-discuss] ALOC Draft

[Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>]

Thanks, Sotiris, for forwarding the draft.

Some comment on details:
>4. Involvement w/ Board, other entities

I believe we should think about ALAC sending delegates to
the GNSO (Names) Council. As you may know, individual
users have no seats on the proposed GNSO Council 
(they are only mentioned as an example of a possible 
provisional constituency).

This is the GNSO Council as envisaged in the Blueprint:

6 from "provider constituencies"
  2 gTLD registries
  2 gTLD registrars
  2 ISPs
6 from "user constituencies"
  2 Non-comm. domain holders
  2 Business/commercial
  2 Intellectual property
3 members selected by the Nominating Committee
1 non-voting GAC liaison

Several DNSO constituencies have spoken up in Bucharest
for including At Large on the GNSO Council. 

I know that some -- *not* all -- At Large activists have
stayed away from "DNSO politics" and only wanted
access to the Board. I believe that arguing for bottom-up
process means that one also has to participate at the
bottom level. The DNSO is the place where domain name 
policy development should start, so I think it is 
appropriate for the At Large to be involved there.

I also see that sending delegates to the GNSO somehow
breaks the SO symmetry: Why should At Large be more
directly involved here than in other areas?
-- ccSO: The ccTLDs have (or should have) input mechanisms
   for their local Internet community. In addition, 
   users can voice their concerns to national governments.
-- ASO: The ASO is structured regionally, almost all the
   policy development is done at the RIR level.
That leaves the DNSO (--> GNSO), with no regional 
substructure and no local community. I also believe that
gTLD domain issues are of high (probably highest) concern
to Internet users at large.

Just a note on words:
>5. At-Large Structures

I believe this clumsy expression should be dropped and
"user organization" should be used instead. If an "At Large
Structure" is not a user organization, it should not be
in the At Large Advisory Committee in the first place.

Best regards,
/// Alexander


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