ICANN/DNSO

Names Council Task Force on Structure

Draft outline analysis of the ALSC final report proposals according to the criteria specified in the terms of reference draft version2


DNSO NC TF on Structure
Discussion paper
Draft outline analysis of the ALSC final report proposals according to the criteria specified in the terms of reference draft version2

  1. Key proposals of the ALSC November 2001 report

    • Define potential electorate as individual domain name holders
    • Establish an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALSC) to organise that electorate
    • Fund the ALSO via membership dues as a condition of voting
    • Establish 6 ICANN regions
    • Elect 6 At-Large Board directors with 3 year term
    • Elect one 12 member ALSO Council (two per region)
    • Hold regional elections for 3 international posts and 3 regional posts
    • Post no 1 (most votes) elected as At-Large Board director
    • Post no 2 and 3 (second and third highest votes) elected to ALSO Council.
    • No 2 through no 6 regional winners form 5 member Regional Council.
    • Hold first elections in 2002.
    • ALSO provides consensus-based policy advice within ICANN's mission.
    • Use Registrars as conduit to reach the potential electorate.
    • Review after two election cycles (6 years or 2008).

  2. Evaluation against established criteria

    Criteria and Evaluation

    1. the efficacy of policy making within the DNSO

    Criteria - degree of formal interaction between stakeholders
    Evaluation - Low. Compared with an individual domain name holders constituency within the DNSO, the evaluation is negative

    Criteria - quantity of predicted unique issues of a new SO outside the competence of DNSO versus issues within competence of DNSO
    Evaluation - Low. There will be high overlap between issues discussed by an ALSO with those of the DNSO.

    Criteria - mechanisms for cross-SO communication
    Evaluation - Uncertain. No mechanisms are proposed. There will be membership overlap and so informal cross communication. There will probably be a need for formalised mechanisms.

    Criteria - effect on the DNSO consensus process.
    Evaluation - High. The ALSO provides the organisation of individuals and is an enabler of consensus. The DNSO could use this input as part of its consensus process.

    2. the efficacy of ICANN decision making

    Criteria - the ability of each proposal to generate valid consensus-based policy making
    Evaluation - Uncertain. The ALSO will enhance consensus within itself but not per se within the ICANN community.

    Criteria - possibility of the Board receiving contradictory advice from its SOs and the impact on resolution mechanisms
    Evaluation - High. Today the policy areas of the three SOs are distinct. With an ALSO feeling able to comment on all ICANN policy areas they may conflict with each of the three existing SOs.

    Criteria - likely financial and representational robustness of any SO
    Evaluation - Uncertain. The real test of individuals interest in at-large will be when members are asked to pay to vote.

    Criteria - likelihood of the proposal to achieve adequate, balanced and fair stakeholder representation on the Board
    Evaluation - High. The proposed ALSO structure should produce better at-large representation than the status quo (subject to the financial question above.) There will be one additional at-large member than the status quo.


Information from:
DNSO Names Council