[ALSC-Forum] Re: ICANN Meeting in Marina del Rey (13-15 November 2001)

[DannyYounger]

Dear Esther,

I would ask you to reconsider your inclination to move forward with ALSC 
recommendations at this time.  As our CEO will be adding agenda items only on 
the basis of what they contribute to the overall focus of this upcoming 
meeting (security), it is reasonable to assume that there will be no 
opportunity for public comment at this plenary session on the final ALSC 
proposal.  

As not one member in this forum thus far has either endorsed the preliminary 
draft or has agreed with the Committee decision to break our compact with the 
US government and elect less than the requisite number of Directors promised, 
 such a presentation of final recommendations in the absence of the 
opportunity for dissent would be regarded as a particularly underhanded way 
of attending to business.

With regard to the preliminary ALSC draft, the only support that I have noted 
for the Committee's decision to go with the 6-12 option comes from those 
(registrars and registries) that like vultures are circling the remains of 
the DNSO carcass.  With the probability of six seats on the Board in a 
provider SO, these constituencies have no qualms about reducing the At-Large 
Directors from 9 to 6 -- they are busy gorging themselves on the prospect the 
Committee has offered of enhanced influence at our expense (as if they didn't 
have enough power already).   

I am, of course, impressed by this Committee's ability to flagrantly buy 
support for its proposal, but in this ALSC forum, Committee recommendations 
on the proposed number of At-Large Directors have no support.  In the GA, 
there is similarly no support.  It is no wonder that no one has come forth to 
provide the Committee with further requested input on implementational 
details because the Committee has thus far chosen to reject the consensus 
view of participating members.   

As I watch this process, I am finally beginning to share Karl's view that the 
concept of the At-Large will most definately be buried in a clean-sheet...  
but it will not lack for company -- it appears that the concept of community 
consensus will assuredly be buried alongside.