Re: [ALSC-Forum] ALSC Final Report

[DPF]

On Mon, 5 Nov 2001 15:00:36 -0800, "Denise Michel"
<dmichel@atlargestudy.org> wrote:

>Based on our view of ICANN as a balance among developers, providers and
>users, we recommend that the At-Large membership select a third of ICANN's
>Board. In the dialogue over the months since the publication of our draft
>report, we have found that this proposal has wide, although not unanimous,
>support. 

It would have been useful and IMO more credible if the ALSC provided
some details to back up this sentence.  Could they specify what
organisations and individuals backed the reduction from nine to six?  

Considering this is about taking votes away from users and giving more
to developers and providers it would also be useful to have analysed
if the claimed "wide"support was purely from the providers and
developers.

>There are voices calling for, at the least, half of the members of
>the ICANN Board being elected by an At-Large membership.  We do see distinct
>drawbacks with this, and we must also note that this proposal is very
>unlikely to get sufficient support within the wider ICANN community.

Once again the lack of specificity is disappointing.  To be blunt if
this was a commercial environment and the ALSC was a cmte making a
commercial recommendation it would be sent back.  Not because of the
decision but because of sweeping conclusions with no substance to back
them up.

What would have been useful is a list of the factors which make
retaining half the Board as at large members as having distinct
drawbacks.  Is this because business interests feel they do not have
enough say and that individual and user interests dominate?  

>There have been concerns expressed that an election system based on
>individual domain name holders will use too narrow of an electorate.

It is important for everyone to be aware that the electorate will not
be individual domain name holders.  It will be open to all domain name
holders of which an estimated 90% are commercial.  Commercial name
holders can and will merely nominate an admin contact who will be able
to vote for them.  The ALSO will primarily be a larger business and IP
constituency, especially with the introduction of a fee to vote.

>No one wants an ICANN in continuous turmoil, thrown between one uncertain
>experiment after the other. Now is the time for stability and coherence,
>allowing ICANN to address the vital technical and related issues, often of
>profound public importance, that it has been entrusted with.

Indeed thus retaining the status quo of nine at large seats would
remove much of the turmoil and enhance stability.

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527