[nc-str] (fwd) Comments on the ALSC Final report
Please find below a statement on the ALSC Final Report from the Chair
of the GA.
Apart from the resolution already forwarded on the GA has not yet
formally voted on the ALSC report, partly because there are so many
inter-connecting recommendations that such a vote would be difficult
unless it was a simple for or against the whole thing which could be
less than constructive.
While Danny uses his trademark strong language I would urge members
not to let that distract them from the very strong and reasoned case
he makes about keeping to the founding balance of equal
representation. While not yet formally tested in a GA vote (but happy
to do so at the appropriate stage) I share the judgement of Danny that
most active GA members have through other fora expressed opposition to
departing from this balance.
I'll be posting a fuller analysis tonight on the ALSC proposal which
will not just concentrate on the number of board seats issue but also
the wider and vital for DNSO question of whether the DNSO should
remain the (theoretical at least) venue for domain name policy
formulation or if the DNSO merely becomes one voice along that of say
an ALSO and the Board chooses between competing views.
>----- Original Message -----
>Sent: 10 December 2001 19:24
>Subject: [council] Comments on the ALSC Final report
>please forward these comments to the structure TF:
>Knowing that the Names Council has not even considered the vote of the
>General Assembly to reorganize the DNSO, we consider the current Council
>effort to offer the ICANN Board guidance on Structure to be as fraudulent as
>the efforts of the ALSC. Although this Task Force will ignore our opinions
>in much the same manner as the ALSC ignored all public comments, these views
>are being tendered for the sake of the public record, and we look forward to
>the continued oversight of the Department of Commerce.
>When a report is drafted on the At-Large by a Committee that does not
>any At-Large Directors, no prior At-Large candidates, nor any At-Large
>members, and which disregards all the bottom-up comments tendered by the
>At-Large in an open Public Forum, such a report must be thoroughly
>repudiated. Members of the General Assembly through their comments to the
>Public Forum have joined with our At-Large Directors in rejecting this ALSC
>fraud that is being foisted upon the Internet Community.
>The ALSC report neither documents its conclusions nor justifies its
>recommendations. In short, the report is nothing more than the self-serving
>opinions of a narrow group of ICANN insiders that seek to present ICANN
>board-squatters and their supporters with a "blue-ribbon panel approach" to
>further augment their power at the expense of the At-Large.
>It is our belief that we have a founding compact with our US government to
>seat nine At-Large Directors. Any group that claims that consensus exists
>break our contract with our government is acting as a destabilizing force
>that threatens the continuity of our service as the private entity charged
>with the management of the Internet. One breaks a contract with a
>nation at one's peril. Claiming that this contract must be broken because
>stemmed from "fuzzy thinking" and was predicated on an "unsound logical
>basis" is an unmitigated insult to the US government that through its
>Department of Commerce ratified this compact.
>Esther Dyson, on behalf of ICANN, made the following commitment on November
>6, 1998: "Some remain concerned that the Initial Board could simply amend
>the bylaws and remove the membership provisions that we have just described
>above. We commit that this will not happen." Breaking this compact after
>Chairman of the ICANN Board has warranted that this will not happen is the
>ultimate abuse of trust. That such abuse is to be expected from the corrupt
>organization that ICANN has become does not lessen our resolve to abide by
>our founding compact and to abide by our promises.
>We recall the words of the White Paper: "Most of those who criticized the
>proposed allocation of Board seats called for increased representation of
>their particular interest group on the Board of Directors". As we examine
>the self-serving position papers of most of the DNSO constituencies, we
>recognize that these groups intend to engorge themselves like vultures on
>carcass of the At-Large. Their only desire is to enhance their power at the
>expense of the representation of others. We do not find it surprising that
>those that would seek to deny a role to both individuals and registrants
>within the DNSO also seek to support the ALSC recommendations to deny the
>At-Large the representation that it was promised.
>The General Assembly through its comments to the Public Forum has supported
>the original concept of At-Large Directors functioning as an equal
>counterbalance to the Directors drawn from the Supporting Organizations. We
>find there to be no justification whatsoever to break promises made to the