RE: [ALSC-Forum] Evaluation of NAIS and ALSC Reports

[L Gallegos]

Bruce:

The only argument I would have with your statement is that domain 
name  holders are represented in the DNSO.  Individual domain 
name holders are NOT reprepresented in the DNSO which is why 
there is such a strong movement to create an IDNHC.  In addition, 
the DNSO is concerned only with domain name issues, while the 
AL is supposed to be concerned with all aspects of ICANN, 
including addressing and protocols.

On the one hand, the public is totally disenfranchised in the ALSC 
report.  On the other hand individual dn holders are disenfranchised 
in the DNSO.

The end result is that the commercial and inellectual properties 
interests are the only ones truly represpented and therefore control 
ICANN.

So you are quite correct, IMO in the majority of what you have to 
say.  The ALSC would defeat the need for the IDNHC AND public 
membership in the AL.  In addition, by making the AL an SO rather 
than members, it will be a sterile advisory body paid lip service by 
the BoD as they do with the other SO's.  The staff will still make 
the decisions and the BoD will pretty much rubber stamp them and 
DoC rubber stamps what the BoD recommends.

IOW, it is an out of control take over of the internet by special 
interests with most decisions made behind closed doors.

Leah


On 14 Sep 2001, at 23:43, Bruce Young wrote:

> 
> Ant this is its two greatest failings:  it disenfranchises Internet
> users in favor of domain name holders, who already have representation
> through the DNSO; and it reduces the publically-controled board seats
> from 9 to six.  If a smaller board is the goal, why not reduce the SO
> board count as well to 2 each, retaining the public couterbalace of
> industry influence wisely put into the poriginal mix.
>