The DNSGA is updating the subject concept or model at:
http://dnsga.org/announcements/atlarge_5june01.html
Your help is appreciated and I invite constructive criticism from any interested party to determine if the model proposed is viable. I believe that this is Mankind's opportunity to develop a revolutionary International governance system compatible with all interests.
My responses to your questions are typed in blue below.
Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman
Saudia-Online wrote:
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 ?
My thought on this is that the APO member consensus would cause the APO to define criteria for review and criteria regarding how to reach conclusions to that review. It may be the case that APOs have their own agenda and work at developing consensus for that, however, if the APO's members do like the criteria for review and results therefrom, then the members will probably lose interest in that APO making the APO non-effective at presenting its proposals to ICANN Supporting Organizations.
> A splinter group that is not productive, or one that does not produceAn interested party would choose an APO from an ICANN list of qualified APOs. Much like the ICANN Accredited Registrar list, there would be an ICANN Approved Proposal Organization list, so that any interested party could choose APOs that fit her/his interest and level. This is the APO competition mechanism I described allowing APO's to compete for participants, members, and information for developing or furthering an APO's agenda and position concerning the Internet. This also demands that APO's fund the advancement of its positions so that the finished position or product is comprehensive and effective in its presentation, thus saving the ICANN Supporting Organizations and the ICANN Board time on their review. This will streamline the review process with valid and verifiable information while generating more participation in the process.
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>