[nc-str] Where should policy making happen?
Dave Farrar raises a lot of interesting issues some wider than the immediate task at hand but all nevertheless relevant to the structure and efficacy of ICANN. I will incorporate his comments relevant to the ALSO analysis along with other input received by the deadline.
In the meantime I would like to discuss where one of the wider points may take us.
Policy making - individuals constituency and an ALSO
Dave recognises the likely policy overlap and potential for contradictory advise if the ALSO makes policy and advises the Board like a regular SO. I see four outline models:
1. Status quo - no ALSO, no individuals domain name holders constituency (IDNHC) within the DNSO. Result: lack of individuals' representation.
2. ALSO, no change DNSO.
Result: Board may get contradictory advise, DNSO role in policy weakened, relevance of today's GA uncertain.
3. ALSO, new IDNHC within DNSO
Result: Board may get contradictory advise, DNSO role in policy weakened, GA reverts to its intended role as a unifying assembly, duplication of individuals voice in policy making.
4. Different ALSO (direct elections to board, but policy directed via the DNSO), otherwise no change DNSO
Result: Board gets consistent advise, DNSO role in policy strengthened, GA reverts to its intended role as a unifying assembly.
If this simple model is robust, then exploring what option 4 could mean at the practical level seems like a productive route? Comments.