Re: [nc-str] Where should policy making happen?

[Raul Echeberria <raul@inia.org.uy>]

Thank you Philip for the synthesis. Let me focus in this point:

>  
> 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.

There is a confusion around the ALSC report. It is not clear if the ALSC
is proposing that only the domain name owners should be the AL members
because a conceptual definition or if all the people interested in become
a member should register a domain name because this would simplify 
the implementation.

I understand that the argument is clearly the second. In this case nobody
is expecting that the ALSO represent the Individual Domain Name Owners'
interests. The idea is to allow and promote a broader public
participation through the ALSO in wider ICANN issues. Therefore not
necessary there would be conflicts in the advices received from those two
sources. (DNSO and ALSO).

Independently of the definitions made with the goal to solve
implementations problems, the AL membership (or ALSO if you prefer) will
be people involved in issues wider than domain names. It doesn't
substitute the IDNHC.


Regards, 

Raul