Re: [ga] RE: Bylaws Change Requested -- The At-Large Requires Representation

[sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Dear Dr. Cerf,

My comments inline below.

Danny Younger wrote:

[Note: I have had my differences with Mr. Danny Younger on numerous issues
and his handling of them, none of which colour or prejudice my comments.]

> Dear Vint,
>
> In my time as an ICANN participant I have taken note
> of the degree of participation within three
> organizations:  the DNSO GA, the IDNO, and
> icannatlarge.  Each of these groups attained mailing
> list numbers that only mildly exceeded 1000
> participants.  When I compare this activity to that
> found within the ISPs, the BC, the NCUC and the IP, I
> am proud to see a much higher degree of involvement
> (even the registrars don't get more than two or three
> dozen entities participating in a vote).

Indeed, the DNSO GA, the IDNO, and icannatlarge mailing lists were quite
active however the noise to signal ratio was quite asymmetrical and little
was actually accomplished.  Instead of those models, I would like to
remind you of the public mailing list working groups, particularly the
DNSO Review.

Having 'whet my teeth' as the DNSO Reveiw WG's extended deadline
facilitator ("interim" or "working chair" see:
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg03003.html) of the DNSO
Review after Greg Burton's ungracious and hurried deposit and exit; I wish
to remind you how the DNSO Review Working Group continued on for a month
as an example of a productive public (i.e. grassroots) organ of ICANN
policy
recommendations bodies (and an international one at that).  From Thu, 15
Mar 2001 to Mon, April 16, 2001 the DNSO Review produced the following
Recommendations to the Board:
http://forum.icann.org/dnsoreview1/3ADB39BF00000043.html

It is my firm opinion that no other public organ of the ICANN produced a
more candid, inclusive and condensed set of recommendations regarding the
perceived problems inherent in the relevant ICANN structure at the time of
its drafting.  I think this is quite a significant phenomenon and IMHO
deserves to be revisited.  ICANN is in a unique (and one could even say
'perilous') position vis a vis its role in Internet Governance.  Perhaps
this is one of those times when it might be prudent to take one step back
in order to make two forward?  Food for thought, anyway.

>
> We both know that a constituent body may be launched
> with a great amount of fanfare and that initial
> signatories to such an effort may be many, but
> certainly it will not be an unmanagable number -- as
> recent organizational history has shown -- and over
> the course of time those numbers invariably will drop.
>
> I am suggesting that the Board allows for the
> formation of a new constituency -- an At-Large
> Assembly.  Member management would become the
> responsibility of the constituency, not ICANN, so the
> ICANN concern over a possible 80,000 new voices
> becomes a moot point.

Dr. Cerf, I look forward to seeing you in Canada once again, in Vancouver
this time around.  I hope you will at least entertain the thoughts
expressed by Mr. Younger, Richard Henderson, Chris McElroy, myself and
others.  I believe the international public may actually have something to
offer ICANN.      I believe the time for an At-Large constituency has
come, it is my hope you will share such an opinion, or at least, entertain
the thought.

Best Regards,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
Toronto, Canada