[nc-str] BC Comments on Structure...

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

 

Philip, on behalf of the BC, I have a couple of changes to recommend at this point, as edits to your analysis  and several other comments. Regards, Marilyn 

 

First, under

1.  Key proposals of the ALSC November 2001 report

• Define potential electorate as individual domain name holders

Please note that the ALSC report also indicated support for a mechanism within the regions whereby non-members could be brought into membership. 

 

The BC considers this an important point to note and supported the need for exploring how to enable this over time and to establish a mechanism within the regional or national organizations to develop a mechanism to support non name holders over time.

 

• Establish 6 ICANN Regions

 

In fact, the final recommendation of the ALSC noted that it would be appropriate to maintain 5 regions, but to have 6 board members, with one region (Asia Pacific) holding two seats, but ensuring that these seats were from different countries.

 

 

Criteria:

 

1.  Efficacy of Policy Making within the DNSO
-degree of formal interaction between stakeholders:

 

I believe it is premature to judge this as "low". It is simply unclear at this point since too little information is available about how the Councils might work,and how individuals might participate.  That is also true for the conceptualized "Individual Domain Name Holders Constituency within the DNSO.   Both merely remain undefined. 

 

National and regional structures may in fact offer greater degree of formal interaction between stakeholders than a single, world wide individuals organization.

 

I would prefer that the evaluation be "undetermined".

 

-quantity of predicted unique issues of a new SO outside the competence of DNSO, versus issues within competence of DNSO

 

I agree that there is likely to be a high degree of overlap between issues managed by the DNSO and an ALSO. 

 

-mechanisms for  cross-SO communication:

 

Agree that there will be a need for formal mechanisms for communication between in particular the ALSO and the DNSO. 

 

-effect on the DNSO consensus process:

 

Particularly important that there be cross SO communications.

 

2.  Efficacy of ICANN decision making

 

-the ability of each proposal to generate valid consensus-based policy making

 

The ALSO's ability to develop consensus within itself is yet to be determined, however, the potential does exist.

 

-possibility of the Board receiving contradictory advice from it's SOs and the impact on resolution mechanisms

 

Agree with Philip's analysis.

 

-likely financial and representation robustness of any SO

 

It is very unclear whether individuals will pay for membership.  

 

-likelihood of the proposal to achieve adequate, balances and fair stakeholder representation on the board:

 

agree with Philip's analysis.

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 11:00 AM
To: NC Structure
Subject: [nc-str] ALSC discussion - Dedaline Dec 17

TF members,

This is a chaser. I have not yet seen comments on the attached discussion paper. This paper you will recall attempts to:

1. Write a factual snapshot of the ALSC proposals.

2. Start a high-level outline testing those proposals against our criteria.

 

The test against criteria is intentionally limited to one or two sentences and there is a short evaluation.

 

If you agree I suggest we us this as a template for our work, adding, deleting, amending to the evaluation sections until we have agreement on each. In this work we can start to add in the various constituency perspectives and then see how those perspectives together produce a consensus view.

 

As we start this analysis, please suggest other criteria that you think may be helpful in line with the TOR proposals.

 

Could I ask for comments latest December 17 ?

 

Philip