Re: [icann-europe] ALSC publishes final draft

[Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang.medienstadt@okay.net>]

Dear all,

In my opinion, the good thing with the ALSC draft is that it goes one step
forward (not sideward or backward) into an unknown territory. The intention,
to give users (ordininary netizens) a voice is unquestioned. To come down to
earth you need a workable system wich can be financed. The ALSO tends to be
in that direction.

Nevertheless there are a number of issues with the ALSO proposal, inter
alia:

* the shift from "Individual Domain Name User" to "Individual Domain Name
Holder" is significant. On the one hand, the e-mail address based system is
rather fragile, on the other hand a domain name holder is not a typical
user. This could lead to a new understanding of the role and status of an
"Individual Domain Name Holder"/IDNH (which goes beyond the present design
of the "Individual Domain Name Holders Constituency", which is fighting for
recognition as a DNSO constituency since Singapore (march 1999). In fact
this could lead to two categories of Internet users. a. The "ordinary,
non-interested, non-concerned sand not qualified internet user and b.  the
IDNH as the "qualified/concerned/interested Internet user". A lot depends on
the mechanism how easy (and cheap) the move from "User" to "Holder" will be.
One way out could be the introduction of an "easy going" mechanism
(supported by ICANN) for an "e-mail address holder" to become a "domain name
holder" so that the barriers are really low. (Look into the .name registry
where your invidual e-mail address is identical with your domain name). My
understanding of the ALSC Draft is, that it aims in this direction.

* the membership fee is a problem. We discussed this in the MAC and rejected
any fees. One argument was that collecting the "small fee" will eat more
money than you earn. If registrars/registries are between an ALSO/ICANN and
individual domain name holders / members this could be different. But would
an individual domain name holder, who wants to be also an ALSO member, pay a
higher domain name registration fee (which includes than also the membership
fee) or would the membership fee automatically included into the
registration fee so that with the domain name registration you are
automatically a "member" and it is up to you, the individual domain name
holder/user, to activate the ALSO membership for elections (BTW not all
taxpayers participate in democratic elections). What about a "sponsorship
system" for individuals in undereveloped regions (if individual users /
domain name holders fulfill certain criteria their membership fee can be
waved)?

* general financing: There should be more creativity in finding resources
which go beyond a membership fee. I repeat my proposal for the establishment
of an "independent fund" which would invite private donations, contributions
from members of other ICANN constituencies and even from governments.
Governments should be interested in an self-organized at large membership
which will work towards the protection of global public interests in the
management of the Internet. This would not be a misuse of taxpayers money.
On the other hand, the fund would need really independence so that
"donators" do not have a chance to buy policies.

* voting in the Board could become a problem. If you go from a 9 : 9 system
to a 12 : 6 system than you have to reconsider the voting procedures within
the Board. For "substantial decisions" a two-third majority (not only a
single majority) would be needed. Practically the six votes should
constitute something like a "light veto-right" which would strengthen on the
other hand the concept of "rough consensus". No fundamental decisions
without at least partial support both by developers, providers and users.

* the introduction of a "sixth region" is good but needs further discussion.
The present proposal gives a third underserved region a director. (three
from the "rich north" (plus .AU and .NZ) and three from the South. This is a
very good step. But what about China?

* the composition of the ALSO Council and the regional councils needs more
debate. One issue is geographical diversity within the region. If you take
the elections from 2000 than the regional council for Europe (next five to
AMM) would be dominated by the Germans.

More issues will pop up. Looking forward a good discussion in Montevideo.

BTW, the ICC is planning to have again a "Dialogue with Directors" on
Friday, 7th of September 2001, 14.00 - 17.00, elsewhere in the Conference
Hotel (This is between the open ALSC meetings)

Hi

wolfgang




----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Svensson" <svensson@icannchannel.de>
To: <icann-europe@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: [icann-europe] ALSC publishes final draft


>
> Jefsey Morfin wrote on 28.08.01, 13:27:51:
> > @large lose three seats.
> Indeed. (Optimistic version: De iure loses three,
> de facto wins one -- the other four were never
> elected.)
>
> > Registrants are no more going to be represented.
> ?no more? How where registrants represented before?
>
> > ccTLD are gethoified,
> ? The cc/gTLD/DNSO future is not touched.
>
> > regions will overlap,
> ? Where did you read that?
>
> > Staff has increased adminustrative powers,
> ? Where did you read that?
>
> > IPC can now interfere with registered third level,
> ? The definition of "registered DN" is taken from the
> registry operator contracts -- not new.
>
> > Registers Inc. makes a huge marketing operation,
> ? You mean, marketing the At Large? Would that be bad?
>
> > my proposition to Peter de Blanc becomes the outreach
> > method,
> ? If you are referring to "in addition to general outreach
> efforts, organizers should work with the registrars to use
> the domain name registration infrastructure to notify current
> and future individual domain name holders' administrative
> contacts of the opportunity to join and financially support
> an At-Large membership.", you will be happy to know that
> this idea has already been in the ICANN MAC proposal of May
> 1999: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/outreach.html
>
> > confusion all over ...
> Indeed. Confusion all over, let's not add to it.
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: icann-europe-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: icann-europe-help@lists.fitug.de
>


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