DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] Re: Questions on the draft BC Position Paper

Additional questions:

11.  Does the BC support the continued existence of the ASO and PSO?  If not, 
12.  Does the BC support the continued existence of the DNSO? 
13.  Does the BC support the concept of nine At-Large Directors as originally 
promised?  If not, why not?
14.  You state as a requirement for the At-Large a <<stable base of funding 
>> which you regard as a key <<benchmark for participation>>.  Would you deny 
representation to constituencies such as the NCDNHC that have demonstrated 
difficulties in raising funds?  I note that your own constituency has an debt 
derived from the third party costs incurred by the previous secretariat 
($45,000) that still has not been paid.  Had you chosen to pay your bills in 
a forthright and timely fashion, the BC as well would not have had funds to 
participate in the DNSO.  As the BC does not have a stable base of funding 
sufficient to cover all of its financial obligations, are you arguing that 
the BC should be denied a participatory role as well?
15.  In your view, is there any true difference between the BC and the IP?  
Aren't they two sides of the same coin?  Should these two constituencies in 
fact be merged?  If not, why not?
16.  What is the appropriate membership level benchmark for the At-Large?  
What is the benchmark level for other constituencies such as the BC?  
17.  Your constituency still includes SITA (a registry operator) as a member, 
yet the BC has denied membership to other registry operators such as New.net. 
 Does the BC sufficiently believe in the concept of representation to thereby 
support establishing a constituency for the alternate root community?
18.  You have stated <<The BC recommends that we should seek first to improve 
the present process of policy development>>  As the BC has chaired the 
Council, and almost every major committee and task force, and can reasonably 
be held accountable for the state of the present process, how do you suggest 
that ICANN improve the present process?  What plan do you propose?
19.  You argue that <<ICANN needs stronger relationships with the ccTLDs>>.  
The ccTLDs seek a service contract arrangement, and ICANN refuses to operate 
on that basis.  How do you propose ending this impasse?  Exactly what are 
recommending that ICANN do to establish a stronger relationship?
20.  You wrote that we should <<avoid functional segmentation by ensuring 
that key stakeholder categories, not sub-categories, participate>> in the 
Board selection process.  Which subcategories of participants would you 
specifically exclude?  Why?

This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>