John L ha scritto:
Have these issues been resolved? When will they be resolved?
Beats me, the ombudsman sent an error riddled report to the board which is supposed to do something about it. Perhaps Vittorio knows where it stands.
The Board has to provide an answer to his recommendations by May 12 - that's where it is now.
I dont think disparaging their interest in involvement is warranted.
Nobody's disparaging their interest in involvement. Why are you bringing up this red herring? The problem is that they're asking to join the wrong piece of ICANN. If they wanted to join the GAC or the IP constituency, they wouldn't qualify there, either.
I'll take this de-lurking opportunity to explain that ICANN is in the process of reviewing the GNSO, and that the external reviewers pointed out that there might be some overlap of interests between the NCUC and the individual users represented through the At Large mechanism. The fact that several orgs-of-orgs now want to join the At Large might be another sign that there is an issue there, and the distinction between the two groups (which are in very different places in the ICANN structure anyway) might be revised, blurred or even eliminated. Basically, the principle of constituency building at ICANN has always been "you pick where you belong", until some constituencies were somewhat captured by the first comers and started to look for any kind of excuse to refuse further members. Moreover, the "no org of orgs" criteria for the At Large was designed in 2002, when everyone was obsessed with voting and people were afraid that orgs-of-orgs would try to subscribe multiple times to increase their weight in votes. At this point in time, personally I don't think that it makes much of a difference whether an organization has individual members or not, provided that it is clear that in the end it works to the advantage of individual users. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------