I hate to comment on merit, because at the end of the day this proposal will end up on the Board's agenda, but I cannot avoid making a comment for clarification. The approach used by Ross (50% to contracted parties, or supplier, 50% to non-contracted parties, or users/consumers, plus possibly NomCom appointees as tie-breakers) was seen by the GNSO Review WG after very lengthy discussions as the only possible balance. This, incidentally, is exactly the status-quo, if you do the voting maths: Ry+Rar have 12 votes because of the weighted voting, BC+ISP+IP+NCUC have 12 votes, NomComAppointees have 3 (tie-break) votes. The "triangular" proposal reproposes the unbalanced situation we had before, that brought to the introduction of the weighted voting. If it didn't work before, and needed fixing, it has little chances to be considered workable now. At least, the document should explain to the Board why folks think that what did not work in the past would work in the future. On a different level, the whole point the GNSO Review WG was trying to address is the fact that in the current situation of ossified constituencies there is very little chance, if any, to have new stakeholder groups to be introduced, like individual registrants or individual users. Rather than engaging in the exercise of finding different structural solutions, would it be more useful to work towards building stakeholders groups that can operate in the model offered by the GNSO Review WG? Wouldn't this be more useful for the individual registrant and/or individual user communities? Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Wednesday, 23 April 2008 16:11 To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: At-Large Worldwide; Danny Younger; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GNSO reform and ALAC
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
What a farce.
Whether or not the document is any good
It isn't. It completely marginalizes the individual registrant and user communities by shifting most of the power to the commercial user/commercial registrant community (read: IPC/ISPC/BC).
I think the paper is correct in pointing out that contracted parties do need some sort of grouping, but it forgets that registrants (of all types) are a highly important component of this. My strongest preference has always been to provide the contracted parties with 1/2 of the vote of the Council, and the user community with the other 1/2. How the 1/2s get divided up is a matter for discussion, but I think its time for a serious discussion of these matters before some half-baked scheme like this commercial power grab gets institutionalized.
Sorry for cross posting this - not sure where this thread should actually live.
/ross
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org