Howdy,
Thank you for (re)merging and the efforts to address the concern
I'd expressed.
The IETF still cannot support this -- the remarks addressed to
size and composition of the ICANN board are outside the scope of the
PSO's mandate. Furthermore, to get consensus between our 4 SDOs
to issue a statement addressing these delicate issues (whether
as the PSO-outside-of-mandate, or the 4 SDOs acting jointly),
we would need to do much more shared discussion, exploration of
alternatives, etc. I think the lack of effort to do so since the
last teleconference is a reflection of a mutual sense of not being
close enough to reaching such consensus.
This is a matter of principle, not document editing.
I do fully appreciate your efforts to shape something more substantial
than a reply to the technical issues, but respectfully disagree
that this is the time or the place to do so on this issue.
Leslie.
azucena.hernandez@POP3.TELEFONICA.ES wrote:
>
> 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
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"The best laid plans
are written in pencil."
-- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------