Re: [ALSC-Forum] Options A,B,C

[Jeff Williams]

Esther and all stakeholders and interested parties,

  The predominant aspect of the Options provided in this "outline"
is that it does not specifically provide for Inclusive and Competitive
Root/Registry structures.  As such, none of the options (A, B, or C)
are representative of the broad stakeholders/interested parties required
in the White Paper and/or the MoU.  My guess is that many of
New.nets registrants/domain name owners as well as number of
other Inclusive and Competitive root/registry registrants and
our members would find less than inclusive or properly accountable
and legitimate.

Esther Dyson wrote:

> These are very helpful, because they help clarify thinking!
>
> Note - You can have errors in guessing what *we meant,* but the whole point
> of these is to be starting points for discussion as to what would work
> best, which may well *not* be what we originally meant....  BTW, there's
> another option paper up, from Susan Crawford at Wilmer Cutler, and it would
> be great to see that one in this format too.
>
> *my* vision, at least, of Option B was that the customer constituencies
> would no longer be rigidly defined by ICANN (or the committee), but would
> melt, thaw, and resolve themselves into fluid dew - new groups/parties/
> splinter groups, whatever.  And the AL Members would all be individuals,
> even though they might be employed by some of the institutional "customers."
>
> Meanwhile, the DNSO would probably consist of registrars and of ccTLDs and
> gTLDs, as in option A.  Or there might be a finer subdivision into
> sponsored and unsponsored TLDs... and some of the ccTLDs might properly
> join the gTLD camp....  (Or, you could say that we'll take one column from
> option A and one from Option B.)
>
> With luck, ICANN would set out a limited, basic structure and some of these
> groups would re-/self-organize.
>
> Also, in Option B (and in some form in other options too), there's a
> permanent staff that crosses under the whole structure, but that (in option
> B at least) has some close connection to the SOs and the At-Large, whether
> through  aoppointees working  closely with the elected directors and the SO
> groups' staff or some other mechanism.  They would also (yes, none of this
> deals with cost!!) include a group devoted to communicating with the
> At-Large Members. That would foster congruence between the policies people
> voted for and the staff's sense of its mission.  (Note that the underlying
> message here is a hope that At-Large Members would focus on policies more
> than on individual directors/personalities, though it often takes a
> personality to clarify/articulate the visions behind policies.)
>
> ALso, I'm not sure about the Council and the GA in this model (Option B).
> Indeed, this may be one of the major differences between A and B, with B
> having fewer defined structures and more self-organizing, fluid
> ones.  Perhaps the Council Secretariat would morph into the customer
> staff.  And the GA perhaps *is* the totality of the AL Membership....
>
> Finally, Options A and B do not show the Advisory Committees, but I assume
> they would still exist in all three options.  And yes, we need some clever
> thinking about how to fund all this!
>
> Esther Dyson
>
> At 11:02 PM 7/30/2001, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> >I have taken the liberty of creating visual representations to correspond
> >with Template Options A,B,C.
> >These have been published at http://www.icannworld.org/options.htm
> >
> >If there are any errors in my interpretation of what these options depict,
> >please feel free to let me know so that I can make the necessary corrections.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Danny Younger
>
> Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
> chairman, EDventure Holdings
> writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
> edyson@edventure.com
> 1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
> 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> New York, NY 10011 USA
> http://www.edventure.com
>
> High-Tech Forum in Europe: 7 to 9 November, Berlin
> PC FORUM: 24 to 27 March 2002, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208