[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [ga] About GA membership again......
>Yes you forgot something. The GA of the DNSO is composed of ALL
>(organized or dis-organized) that have an interest or a stake in the
>The "DNSO for organizations" is represented by the Names Council. The
>is for those who feel that they should be represented on the NC.
I agree with Joop.
What is the need for a GA, if the members of it will only be
organizations that participate already to the DNSO via the constituency/
ies they belong to?
The GA's added value is precisely the individuals (and, to a certain
extent, also the organizations) that are not represented in the
constituency system - and therefore not represented in the Name Council.
>If you send them away, the capture of the DNSO is sealed and the door
I would not speak of "capture" because the interests represented by the
constituencies are wide and diverse, and I do not see an obvious
possibility of "capture" by a small subset of them.
What I see, though, is the real possibility of excluding a large part of
stakeholders from the process.
>The ICANN "at- large" membership , ahhh , now that is something else
Joop identifies a point that should be discussed, IMHO.
What will be the relationship btw. GA and @large?
What will be the composition of the @large, and is there an overlap with
the GA? What part of the @large-Members will be interested in
participating in the DNSO/GA?
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html