Re: [ALSC-Forum] Splinter Groups

[Saudia-Online]

Hadi Bahra
Hadi@saudia-online.com
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.saudia-online.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Derek Conant" <dconant@dnsga.org>
To: <forum@atlargestudy.org>
Cc: <ga@dnsga.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 9:29 PM
Subject: [ALSC-Forum] Splinter Groups


>
> I posted a similar message to the one below at the DNSO GA forum this
> morning.  Having attended the ICANN At-Large Membership Study Committee
> meeting in Stockholm this morning, I believe that the below statement is
> relevant and constructive for this forum.
>
>>Thanks its very constructive.
>
> In my opinion, the best mechanism for advancing the development of
> technology, policy and standards is one that includes many splinter
> groups (SG).  SGs may provide the best mechanism for managing the large
> quantity of comments, opinions and information contributed by
> individuals and organizations willing to participate in advancing the
> development of policy and standards.  How else is ICANN and its
> Supporting Organizations (SOs) later going to manage and validate the
> large quantities of comments, opinions and information contributed by
> individuals and organizations willing to participate?
>
>> This is very good question to answer, and what you are praposing is very
practical.

> A qualified organization or group with its own constituencies and
> consensus is able to assist in the management of information and
> expedite the process of developing and contributing constructive opinion
> derived from its constituencies efficiently onward to the decision
> making bodies or governing bodies (ICANN and its SOs).  This also allows
> the freedom for interested parties to flow from one organization or
> group to the next which may sustain one's momentum and continuing
> interest to participate in these processes.
>
>>Who says or define the criteria of selection of a qualified organization ?

> A splinter group that is not productive, or one that does not produce
> constructive results, simply will not have a significant impact on the
> topics or matters at issue.
>
> ----
> What may be ahead is a restructuring of ICANN's SOs and the development
> of procedures and guidelines that give interested organizations with
> working constituencies a process to follow for submission of their
> constituencies' positions regarding topics or subject matter.
>
> I imagine certain interested parties as individuals and workgroup SGs
> participating as constituencies submitting their positions to an *ICANN
> Approved Proposal Organization* (APO).  I see that said APO will weigh
> the comments, opinions and information contributed by its SG
> constituency members, and I can see that the APO will build its position
> regarding topics and subject matter from the valid consensus derived
> from its SG constituency members.

>> who select the members of the Approved Proposal Organization* (APO).  ??
>
> I then imagine that the APO will propose its positions based upon its SG
> constituency members' consensus in a formal application and proposal to
> ICANN SOs.  The ICANN SOs would then be responsible for reviewing and
> weighing the merits of the APO's application and proposal.  The ICANN
> SOs would then build its opinion upon consensus from the APO
> applications and proposals and submit findings and information regarding
> topics or subject matter to the ICANN Board for review.
>
> In this model I imagine that ICANN Board Members and ICANN SO
> representatives would eventually be elected by the APOs.  I also imagine
> possibly hundreds of APOs and many ICANN SOs structurally placed to
> manage APO proposals.
>
> The ICANN Board may request the ICANN SOs to engage the advancement and
> development of certain topics and subject matter, whereas, the APO's may
> request the ICANN SOs to engage advancement and development of certain
> topics and subject matter for ICANN Board review.  The process is open
> and transparent and one can see how the ICANN SOs reached their
> conclusions from the APO applications and proposals.  However, ICANN SOs
> decide what the ICANN Board sees.
>
> I believe that most everyone and every Country around the world wants
> the Internet and emerging technologies to work for them and their
> respective economy.  There should be no fear of allowing a process that
> demands demonstrable and verifiable valid consensus and information to
> lead here.  The model proposed reduces the threat of special interest
> group penetration or undue influence taking over ICANN.  The
> accountability mechanism in this model is in the demonstrable and
> verifiable consensus and information proposed through the process, that
> of which shows how ICANN receives its direction.
>
> I believe that Mankind has not completed her/his process of learning how
> to trust one another around the world.  International governance is
> still maturing.  There does not appear to be any way to manage the real
> threat of special interest group penetration or undue influence taking
> over ICANN at this time if everyone's votes are counted.  Voters should
> be qualified in this case and show that they know what is being
> represented.  I believe that the APO concept allows for a showing and
> validation of the APO's vote.  The APO is what votes.
>
> Another thing with this concept is that it allows for APO individuals
> and workgroup SGs to flow to and from other APOs which allows for
> accountability and diversity as APOs compete with other APOs.
>
> We have a long way to go and a short time to get there.
>
> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman
>
>
>
>
>
>
>