Jay Fenello wrote:
> It is my understanding from the Boston meeting
> that the current plan for the MAC is to submit
> all three proposals (Individual, Organizational,
> and Open) to ICANN on February 5th for comment.
>
> Is this true?
C'est possible. These are works in progress, Jay. It isn't clear yet how
many models we will present or whether we will lay out various options of
key individual components. We're experimenting with both. At first we
tried gathering input on general concepts, but that didn't seem to move
things as fast as we hoped. Then we decided to throw out something with
more structure and definition because many people find that easier to react
to specific details. We are looking for input on the concepts, but not
wedded to the models themselves. By all means send us your ideas about it.
My vision of the MAC's assignment is to present ICANN with information on
the major issues involved in designing a Membership structure. This
information should include a range of options, where feasible and on as
many points as seem to warrant a choice, and present pros and cons of each
option. If only one course is suggested on any point, then an explanation
should be included. If the committee happens to have a strong consensus on
any recommendation, then that will be noted in our report, but we are not a
decision-making body, we are simply advising ICANN.
That said, I must add that it isn't easy getting all this in place with our
committee members scattered around the world. E-mail is the best thing
since toast, but bandwidth is still a serious limitation on our work
product. It goes so much faster in real space, but we can't get together
very easily, due to the expense and our day job commitments. I am so
pleased we've accomplished as much as we have so far, but we can certainly
use the help of additional thoughtful contributors.
> If so, can the Internet community also submit
> proposals? How will the ICANN BOD reconcile
> these proposals by March 5th?
The Membership Advisory Comm. public discussion list can be linked from
http://www.icann.org/membership-com.html. It is a perfectly appropriate
place to comment on the models, suggest changes, plug in your own. That's
what is was set up for.
The RCS site at http://cyber.harvard.edu/rcs/ also has a list to address
some of the specific points that that the Berkman students have been
researching. Comment to either list ends up on the MAC's desk anyway.
Many of you have been so tied up with DNSO, you probably haven't noticed us
repeatedly begging for input. So many SOs...SO little time. :-)
> If not, how can hybrid proposals be submitted?
> Many have suggested a bicameral model, one that
> the MAC has been slow to embrace.
We have that tagged as a subset of the Organizational Model. It should get
up on the Model page before long. Wendy Seltzer had exams this week on top
of all her chores for the Workshop. We finally gave her permission to
sleep on Sunday night. :-)
Diane Cabell
Membership Advisory Committee
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
