RE: [ALSC-Forum] Comments on Study: Must groups oppose individuals - Thoughts about the ICANN at-large membership

[Cade,Marilyn S - LGA]

Karl, can you give all of some useful and concrete suggestions about how to
organize and communicate with individuals. I think that part is still
missing from your suggestions.  

I don't think an email list where people randomly post, as interesting as
that may be, is the most productive way to communicate. Also I listened hard
to the developing nations folks today. They are asking about this very
issue. 

Perhaps you've personally had experience in organizing and managing
individuals into coherent analysis, feedback, and thoughtful discussion. It
would be great to hear more about those experiences, and how you've
structured such groups and the outcomes of the discussions; how long they
endured, what the outcomes were, etc.  Or perhaps you have some ideas of
others who've done that where we could sort of examine a useful model. Does
it take staff, is just a web site sufficient. How long does the average
participant stay engaged, can people be counted on to do drafting, and to
act as neutral parties to take the opinions and views of others,etc.

Great to see you again, as always.

Regards, Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl@cavebear.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 11:28 AM
To: ANTHONY ORDONA; Bruce Young; forum@atlargestudy.org
Cc: recipient.list.not.shown; @wsscan.att.com
Subject: Re: [ALSC-Forum] Comments on Study: Must groups oppose
individuals - Thoughts about the ICANN at-large membership




--On Sunday, June 03, 2001 9:47 PM -0700 ANTHONY ORDONA 
<anthonyordona@excite.com> wrote:
>>  > It would be easy enough to decide that the group should include only
> those
>>  people who are domain name owners. This idea is currently under
>>  > discussion within the Domain Name Support Organisation (DNSO).

Before getting to far, one has to recognize that the DNSO is a part of 
ICANN  that is focused on Domain Name Policy.  There are two other SO's in 
ICANN that focus on other policy matters.

There is a move to admit individuals who have domain names into the DNSO.

But that is a matter distinct and apart from ICANN's At-Large.

The indiducal domain name owner's constitutency would be for individuals 
who want to deal with the policy issues regarding their domain names.

The at-large is for people who want to deal with ICANN's roles in the 
broader sense - DNS, IP addresses, "protocol parameters" and whatever else 
ICANN may get into.

I've spent many, many e-mails reminding people that an individuals 
consitutency in the DNSO and the at-large are not at all comparable things, 
that they are not interchangeable, that one should not be considered a 
substitute for the other, and that both ought to exist.

> ... Unless ICANN includes everybody who has a
> stake in the internet

I agree that ICANN ought to have an at large body open to every person who 
is or who may be affected by the Internet - essentially everyone.

Indeed, I believe further that ICANN should be legally accountable to that 
at-large body.  (Today ICANN is, as a practical matter, accountable to no 
person other than the Attorney General of the State of California.)

		--karl--