[ga] Structure Taskforce feedback
The Structure TF recommendation that "no policy recommendations would come
from the ALSO separately" is a minority view expressed only by the IPC that
has not been endorsed by any other constituent group. It should not be
accorded status as a majority view. The views of the gTLDs and the NCDNHC
are being categorized as minority views when in fact there have been no
posted "majority views" in opposition to their statements.
The At-Large was promised nine seats on the Board. The TF proposal would
effectively neuter the At-Large and allow it for policy purposes a mere 3
seats in a 24 member Council where the interests of users would routinely be
outvoted by commercial interests. This is a recipe for disaster and should
not be supported by the GA.
The TF document treats the At-Large as if it was a "Supporting Organization".
I cannot concur with this view in that an SO is no more than an internal
working committee in a Corporation that has no members. The At-Large was
never intended to be an SO, instead it was intended to be a membership
organization with all the rights and privileges that are accorded to members
within a corporation. Membership promotes accountability. The ICANN Board
should be accountable to its members.
An SO approach is no more than an artifice designed to limit the risk of
derivative member lawsuits. The TF recommendations should not support an
approach which denies true membership to the At-Large.
The recommendation that the Board should gauge whether the "ALSO" is in fact
ready to operate as an ICANN supporting organization based on the DNSO
criteria for establishing new DNSO constituencies is pure BS and should be
In general terms, there has not been sufficient dialogue within this TF to
tender any recommendations at all. The TF has not seriously examined the
ccSO proposal or the GA proposal or the Lynn proposal. No interim report
should be tendered because no conclusions can be substantiated. No
constituencies have voted or commented on this report, and there has been no
required public comment period. To submit a report without the benefit of
public comments would be a bad precedent to set.
I share the view of Raul Echeberria who wrote: "Finally, I'd like to state
that the level of participation in the TF until now has been absolutely
insufficient to produce an official report."
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html