Dear Vlad, dear PSO-PC colleagues, I have no objections to the reply that you have prepared for Denis Michel. Thanks for it. What we must close now is the "discussion process" on the final comments to the ALSC document that the PSO PC is going to send. I thought that we had fixed today, 15th October, as the deadline to decide on the support received by the "merged version" of the contributions from ETSI and from IETF. After Vlad made the merge, I updated its content trying to solve the concerns raised by Leslie as there was, in fact, an inconsistency within the text as result of the merge. It is my understanding that we are all looking at this text produced by myself in order to decide whether it can be supported by all of us, part of us,...... I enclose the text again in "plain text" after these words in order to help closing this outstanding action. We cannot wait until the next teleconference because it will be too late. Text under discussion/decision: **********************************************************************************************************************Comments to the >ALSC Draft Report on ICANN At-Large Membership >(with further comments from Azucena and more changes related to >Leslie's concern) > >PSO Protocol Council has analysed the comprehensive document drafted by >the ALSC. > >Firstly, the PSO-PC wants to notify that no part of the above referenced >document has any impact on technical issues neither for the Internet >Protocol nor for the operation of the Internet. > >Some of the content of the ALSC document has an impact on the structure of >ICANN and therefore affects the PSO as ICANN Supporting Organization and >all the comments contained herein are presented under this view. > >¨ PSO-PC supports the creation of an At Large Supporting >Organization to channel the involvement of At Large in the ICANN structure >as it is in line with the approach followed to set up the other existing 3 SOs. >¨ PSO-PC advices caution and care in the implementation of the >proposed ALSO membership restricted to "those individuals holding a domain >name". While the ALSC has clearly examined the technical requirements and >potential for abuse in e-mail based ALSO registration, we nevertheless >observe that any at large effort, especially one based on direct voting, >is going to be subject to considerable problems of authentication and >certification (that the same person does not appear multiple times). If >the intent is to give the at large effort sufficient voting leverage, >efforts at capture are almost inevitable. While the ALSC report concludes >that this is a problem for e-mail based voter registration, it is our >opinion that existing technical systems are not sufficient for precluding >the same behaviour in individual domain registration based systems. >¨ If ICANN at large voting "membership" is important, tying it to >second- or third-level domain name registrations could lead to the >creation of more registrations that are not tied to functioning domains. >It would then also tend to further flatten the tree. Neither of these is >desirable. >¨ Furthermore, PSO-PC considers that it would be beneficial for the >Internet community to allow other means to become "At Large member" such >as being an individual member of a national, regional or international >recognised User Association not linked to commercial businesses. This >alternative will not bring the undesirable side effects of the one linked >to the domain name registration. >¨ As for the number of seats in the ICANN Board that this proposed >new Supporting Organization should have, PSO-PC considers that it should >be identical to those assigned to the other ICANN SOs (presently 3 seats >per SO, further reconsideration of this number is acceptable). No value >added is identified for increasing the number of seats for any of the SOs >(including the proposed ALSO) as those individuals elected would hold, >anyhow, the representation of the whole SO. The overhead cost associated >with an increase of the ICANN Board seats should be carefully considered. >¨ Also, PSO-PC believes that ICANN is structured around a careful >balance between technical and operational input. Decisions that change the >balance, on the Board or elsewhere, need to be considered very carefully >and examined for unintentional side effects. >¨ Regarding the duration of the terms of office of the ICANN Board >members representing the ALSO, PSO-PC supports an identical model to the >one followed so far by the existing 3 SOs.. >¨ PSO-PC supports the target of having this new ALSO self-funded, >self-organising and transparent, the way the PSO is. Initial funds and >outreach from ICANN to start up the process is acceptable. >¨ PSO-PC supports the proposal made in the document of increasing >the relationship and exchange of views between the ICANN Supporting >Organizations, including the proposed new one, the ALSO. ********************************************************************************************************************** It comes without saying that ETSI supports these words. Kind regards, Azucena