Re: [ALSC-Forum] Three points of disagreement

[DPF]

On Sat, 8 Sep 2001 11:45:23 +0200, Alexander Svensson
<svensson@icannchannel.de> wrote:

>I think we are down to three main practical problems:
>1. Costs and fees
>2. Membership and domain ownership
>3. 50% vs. 31.6% of Board seats

Agreed.

>1. Costs and fees
>
>ALSC explicitly proposes a membership fee and hopes to
>reduce the costs by using an election mechanism which
>does not require snail mail postage.

I believe a small membership fee is sensible.  However if one tries to
make the ALSO totally self-funding it will not be small but well into
double or triple digits.

US$5 is a figure I could live with.  Enough to show some interest and
commitment.

>2. Membership and domain ownership
>
>ALSC proposes a domain name based approach, NAIS views
>it critically. Joe Sims lists pro and cons and adds
>another possibility: "simply invite all who are willing
>to pay a nominal fee -- just enough to ensure some level of
>actual interest -- to become ICANN "members" and then
>to select (perhaps by vote) the appropriate number
>of ICANN directors." I think this is much preferable
>to a restriction to domain holders, and have argued
>in another mail that the perceived benefits of such
>a restriction are in fact smaller than the ALSC draft
>report states.

I very much agree.  The restriction to domain name holders only will
do little to protect against fraud.  A small membership fee will be
more effective.  Payment of such fee would almost de facto be cheque
or credit card so one could also monitor multiple payments from one
bank account or card as a tool against fraud.

>3. 50% vs. 31.6% of Board seats
>
>This is probably the most contentious issue, since it
>is also a battle for a symbol. Joe Sims is mistaken
>when he asks whether NAIS would be happy with "having
>one-third of ICANN's directors come from the public
>(as the ALSC recommends)": 1/3 would be six of
>eighteen. Since the CEO is elected by a majority vote
>and is ex officio member of the Board, it is six of
>nineteen and thereby less than 1/3. This is especially
>important since bylaw changes require a 2/3 majority.

Indeed.  I believe anything less than the original 50% is a major
betrayal of the promises upon which ICANN was founded.

>The ALSC skilfully argues that there is no consensus
>support for 1/2 Board seats for the At Large, even though
>it is well aware that there is certainly no consensus
>support for 6/19 Board seats. 

Out of interest how many people were against half the seats being at
large?  Over 90% of the submissions I have seen favoured this so how
is that deemed not consensus.

More to the point if there is no consensus then the status quo should
remain and the status quo is half.

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527