[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] About GA membership again......
Alf Hansen and all assembly members,
Alf Hansen wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:Harald@Alvestrand.no]
> > Sent: 30. mars 2000 06:30
> > To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Cc: Alf.Hansen@uninett.no; email@example.com
> > Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......
> > At 02:56 30.03.00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > >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?
> > In my (biased) opinion, the At Large is beyond our control, and it is
> > impossible for us to predict what the At Large is going to be.
> > I think most GA members will be At Large members (they want to be heard
> > there too),
> Yes, I am also an AT-large memeber, just in case. I am a DNSO member because
> I represent a ccTLD and I am a part of the ccTLD Constituency. Can somebody
> please explain why individuals (not connected to any organization in a DNSO
> constituency) should be represented with voting rights in DNSO GA?
I can think of at least two good reasons. The are as follows:
1.) The current constituencies do not necessarily represent the diversified
of a broad segment of the stakeholders as they are currently configured.
2.) The At-Large does not as currently suggested, represent or have
for specific DNS issues for those not members of any constituency and
is restricted to 5000 members in total (This reason is of course related
directly to #1. )
> (I may step into a can-of-worms her, but I just want to hear the arguments,
> and perhaps be convinced to change my mind....)
> > but that the opposite is unlikely, if only because
> > the GA does
> > not have the wish or the means to have membership drives.
> > An At-Large member is expected to vote for representatives who choose
> > candidates to the ICANN board once a year or so. A GA member is (I think)
> > expected to take a position on various issues brought to a GA vote -
> > probably on the order of magnitude of once a month or so.
> I am sure that when the At-large comes into full operations there will be
> many issuse brought up to the full membership. I am not sure how many votes
> there will be during the year, but there will certainly be many
> possibilities for individuals to have influence on the process.
Yes this is likely or at least hopefully true. But presently, we do not know
We also can reasonably assume that on specific DNS related issues that At-Large
members will not have votes on specific issues therefore related.
> Why should individuals be represented both in the At-large and in the DNSO
> GA as individuals? Persons should certainly be able to be both an individual
> in At-large, and represent an organization in the DNSO GA. But why be an
> individual in borh?
> > My guess.
> > Harald
> > --
> > Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> > Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no
> Best regards,
> Alf H
> 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
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
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