RE: [nc-str] Draft report on ALSC V 4

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

Dear colleagues:

The whole draft is based on the undiscussed proposal by which the AL 
members should be the domain name holders. As you know our constituency has 
expressed its position against this proposal. Therefore is a little 
difficult to follow those guidelines.

However, I'd like to comment some point of the draft 4.


1) as Mark has said, is not clear that  "the effect on the DNSO consensus 
process" would be High. In my comments I preferred to comment "uncertain".

2) I don't agree with your statement in "likely financial and 
representational robustness of any SO".  Is not real that you could test 
the individuals interest based in the payment of the fees. If alternatives 
solutions for less-developed countries are not implemented, then we will 
exclude people who could be interested.
The fees could be acceptable to help in the funding of the AL membership, 
but is important that the community offer other alternatives to allow every 
interested person to join ICANN, participate and vote.

3) "likelihood of the proposal to achieve adequate, balanced and fair 
stakeholder representation on the Board". What is the "status quo"? It 
seems that 6 AL directors would improve the AL participation and it is not 
true. I propose to get out the first sentence.

Recommendations

1) It would be very important to remark that not necessarily the ALSO 
should have the same characteristics, rights and representation of the 
others SOs.

2) "Policy consensus"
Is not clear for me the scope of this sentence. I prefer enumerate the 
point about the ALSO structure which we will support.

3) "AL reps in the NC" - Is a very big change. I will discuss the Dave's 
proposal in the constituency. In the beginning I share (probably by 
different reasons) the Mark's concerns related with this point.

Regards,

Raul