<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Dear Wolfgang,<br>
<br>
thank you for your follow-up. Please find my comments inline:<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 18/11/2019 22:05, Wolfgang
Kleinwächter wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2111829160.231670.1574100323550@email.ionos.de">
<div> Bildt proposed that At Large membership should be open to
"individual domain name holders". The idea was to form six
regional At Large Councils (with five members) and a global At
Large Council (with 12 members/two from each of the six
regions). Recognized At Large members would have a right to vote
for the five members of their regional council and also vote for
the regional Board director. The plan was to have a balance in
the ICANN board among "developers" (technical community),
providers (business) and users (civil society) of services, with
governments in an advisory capacity. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
A significant mistake was made by the Bildt Committee and that's to
propose restricting membership to "individual domain name holders".
The DNS is used by all users, not only by domain name holders. In
fact, there is a designation for individuals that hold a large
number of domain names and that's "domainer". So in fact Bildt was
proposing ICANN to close itself into its microcosm of domain name
businesses and domainers, quite the contrary from the openness that
was displayed when ICANN first started.<br>
<br>
This was a significant step back for end users and I understand how
some supporters of ICANN Version 1 were irritated enough to leave
the process altogether. They felt betrayed. As someone who had been
actively involved in supporting the "other" proposal, the Internet
Ad-Hoc Committee (IAHC - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://icannwiki.org/IAHC">https://icannwiki.org/IAHC</a> ), resulting in
a gTLD MoU ( <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://icannwiki.org/GTLD-MoU">https://icannwiki.org/GTLD-MoU</a> ) the debate became
political very quickly, with concerns by US politicians that the
Root and its resources would leave the USA. Upon hindsight, perhaps
the IAHC's proposal was not end-user friendly, but I remember that
one of the significant points made in the presentation of ICANN,
along with the Green and White papers, was that it had a very strong
end user component, through its election process. I think that a lot
of people, reading this, myself included, shifted our view from
supporting a gTLD MoU future to an ICANN future when this end user
component was promoted. What happened during the re-organisation of
ICANN was, in my view, nothing short of capture, and it took me
until 2008 to accept it. BTW the DNSO mailing list discussions were
toxic.<br>
Kindest regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier<br>
</body>
</html>