[ga] Structure Taskforce Update No 3
DRAFT 4 OUT
Draft No 4 is now at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/doc00010.doc
QUORUM FOR ALSO
Draft 3 proposed a minimum 30,000 people have to join the ALSO befoe it could
elect Board members etc. In post http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-
str/Arc00/msg00073.html I suggested 1,000 or so would be a more appropriate
level. The reasoning being:
"The last election figures were inflated by a couple of countries
running campaigns which hopefully will not occur in future. To get a
better idea of likely interest I would look at the North American
election. One had a genuine range of views amongst candidates and no
In NA 3,449 voted. There are over 150,000,000 Internet users in NA so
this is 0.0023%.
Now world wide there are around 500,000,000 Internet users so 0.0023%
is 11,500. Now this is before you even take account of what effect a
fee and restricting to domain name holders will take.
I'd be thinking 1,000 - 2,000. Now some may assert this is far too
low but in each constituency we have election where no more than 50
ever seem to vote. 100 perhaps at the most."
Draft 4 leaves open the question of quorum noting a possible range of 1,000 to
30,000 with arguments for both.
The gTLDs have posted comments at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-
str/Arc00/msg00078.html. Their major thrust appears to be that many of the
eixtsing constituencies should become full Supporting Organisations and ICANN
needs to create a strong inter-SO organization to facilitate consensus-building
I have queried how such an organisation would be different from the current
Names Council. Personally I am wary of giving the Board even more latitude to
pick and choose from competing views but as the Board is happy to largely
ignore the Names Council anyway this may not be such an issue. Again feedback
welcome on the issue of whether one should try to keep all domain name policy
formulation within the DNSO.
They have made the point that if an ALSO is created it should be seen as having
important differences with other SOs which are a collection of stakeholders in
one particular area (names, addresses, protocols) - a point I agree with.
They have also made further comments at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-
str/Arc00/msg00083.html. Concerns are raised about potential ALSO fees
excluding members from less developed countries and also restricting ALSO
membership to domain name holders (again both areas I agree with).
They are not at this stage keen on having the ALSO perform a dual role as an SO
and also as a constituency within the DNSO but are condsultign internally on it.
Their foray is at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00082.html
They are concerned about organisation and financing of an ALSO and its
potential for capture. They also wish the report to focus on just the ALSO
proposal and not any other re-allocation of seats. Perhaps this means they
support retaining 9 at large seats but I doubt it :-)
They are also oppossed to the ALSO having a role within the DNSO and performing
the dual role of an individual's constituency. They believe any IC must go
through the process for new constuiencies (which I note no other has had to go
through) now in place. They haven't addressesed however whether they are happy
to have the ALSO compete with the DNSO in providing policy advice to the Board
on domain names.
They also believe that all domain name holders should be eligible to join the
ALSO regardless of whether they are individuals or not.
As always feedback welcome. I will be posting some further comments to the
Taskforce list tonight once I return from seeing Lord of the Rings :-) The
full list archive is at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html