Re: [ga] GA position on the Structure TF report
At 16:18 16/02/02 +0100, Alexander Svensson wrote:
>At 16.02.2002 23:41, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >The only way Individual DN holders will get listened to is by being able
> to give serious input in the DNSO process.
> >That is where problems come up, are debated and prepared for a policy
> decision by the Board.
>This is why an individual (domain name holders) constituency
>is a necessary addition to the Names Council (unless the
>DNSO structure is revised completely). But according to
>your view, wouldn't it even make more sense to integrate
>the ALSO policy-making /on domain names/ into the DNSO
Thank you for posting that text-only version of the TF report.
Yours is a good question that requires more than a little thought.
I am not sure if it will enhance the role of the Individuals in the DNSO,
or if such "integration" will prove a distraction and a dilution.
The original idea for the @large was to look after the wider interest of
the internet community and not be solely focused on Domain Names.
Now, the ALSC proposal has changed that.
I have always suspected that this was done to deflect the push for
participation of individuals in the DNSO and fob the Individual DN holders
off with a largely worthless "Icann membership".
The IP constituency makes it quite clear that they see the @Large as a
substitute for Individuals in the DNSO.
The TF proposal :
"4. Policy support to the Board. Against an objective to
provide policy input upwards to the Board (subsequent to
consensus building), the TF recommends that the following
structure be adopted for ALSO input on policy recommendations
to the Board. The three members of the proposed At-large administrative
council are given membership of the DNSO Names
Council, and participate within that body exercising voting
and other policy-related privileges in the same way as the
three representatives of the DNSO constituencies. "
could work the way it should, or it could become a mechanism to ensure that
these NC members will never rock the boat. It all depends on under what
rules the At-large administrative Council gets formed.
The devil is in the details.
> >The At Large is a chimera. There will be regional councils that will
> somehow , at some time in the future, cough up a director.
> >Directors will represent regional interests, whatever they are, not
> global Individual DN holders' interests. At the least , they will be
> elected on the basis of a regional division, not an interest division.
>I'm not so sure about that this will be the main
>division (looking at the current At Large directors,
>I don't have the impression that the main difference
>between e.g. Karl Auerbach, Ivan Campos and Masanobu
>Katoh is that Auerbach represents North-American,
>Campos represents Latin American and Caribbean
>interests and Katoh represents Asian interests).
I would agree with that. But would you agree with me that of those
three only Karl comes close to representing Individual DN holders?
Well, perhaps I am too pessimistic about the @Large organization and the
influence their directors are going to have on ICANN DN policy.
But you seem to take it for granted that the playing field will never be
level and that the @Large directors will always be outvoted by business
If the @Large playing field remains that tilted, why play there?
The DNSO has slightly more potential to be worth participating in.
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