[NA-Discuss] [At-Large] GNSO reform and ALAC

[Roberto Gaetano]

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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org 
> [mailto:alac-bounces at 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 at 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 3534 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20080424/24e954d1/attachment.bin