Karl, > Wouldnt the strongest argument for taking an > > ALM proposal seriously be that it originated in an individualized, > > non-commercial -- i.e. democratic -- way? > > Could you restate that? I'm not getting your point. > > I treat the issue of Individual and Non-Commercial elements within the SO > quite apart from their role in the general membership. > As Diane says, "The At-large membership will elect half of the ICANN BoD and as such will have the single largest voice in the decision-making process." -- and Im trying to say it will only be the largest single voice if the ALM learns to interact cooperatively and democratically, sets itself an agenda and follows it, and follows through to see that its representatives *speak with a single voice. Actually, even a couple or three voices would likely be fine, but at the rate we're going, when 'selections' are called (in September, isnt it?) the AL representatives (whoever they may be, it hardly matters) wont have any idea what positions they're to represent. Btw, 9 is in fact half of 18. YOur 'not quite half' may come from counting the Director who is appointed/ hired by the elected members. Then again, since it is fondly imagined that most issues will be proposals submitted by one SO or another, and the reps of that SO are disbarred from voting, thats 9 out of 16... > If 2(e) and 2(f) were removed then there would be more of a sense of > balance. > > But those sections are there, and as long as they are there the locus of > policy formation is in the SO's. > For my part, I'd rather have Bylaws amended by an elected board rather than (to use a word I learned today) an inchoative one. > But even if they were to be removed then one still has to ask, why should > Individual Domain Name Owners and Non-Commercial domain name owners be > excluded from a forum which includes Trademark Owners, ISPs, Registrars, > *TLD operators, etc? Isnt the way to approach this to anticipate what issues are likely to come up, and to develop a position -- gee, even a policy! -- on those issues? If it makes sense, nobody has to give a tinker's dam what the *technical channels are by which it gets on the table. The more energy goes into grousing and moaning about what's been done, the less there is for seeing what's next to do. (FWIW, I present a newly-minted epigram: the devil never farts on the surface.) kerry
