[ga] DNSO Review

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto.gaetano@voila.fr>]

Folks,

I summarize below what has been said in these days in the GA list.
I will report to the Task Force accordingly.

Best regards
Roberto

======================================================

Constituency structure
----------------------

Some people have expressed concerns at the Constituency structure 
altogether.

Others, while they consider that there are at the moment no practical 
alternatives to the Constituency structure, propose some modifications. 
Proposal include:
- the reformulation of the Constituencies, aggregating the present 
groups in fewer categories;
- to improve the representativity (some groups are underrepresented, 
some overrepresented, some misrepresented);
- to define better the balance of power between groups (i.e. not to 
allow one "alliance" among some Constituencies to rule);
- to allow dynamic rules as, for instance, some provisions in the Paris 
Draft.


Individuals
-----------

A special case is a Constituency for Individuals.
There is rough consensus that such a constituency should be added, but 
there is divergence of opinions on whether:
- the Constituency should be limited to Individual Domain Name Holders 
or have a wider charter;
- is IDNO the core of the Individual Constituency, or should other 
groups join in;
The issue of ICANN having not responded to the IDNO proposal for 
Constituency has been raised.


Other issues
------------

It has been noticed that DNSO is in a peculiar situation, because the 
other Supporting Organization had already existing working structures 
(IETF, RIRs).
The relationship between DNSO and AtLarge has to be defined (but this 
concerns probably only - or primarily - the GA).
The consensus building mechanism seems to need improvement. Suggestions 
include:
- let the GA discuss of the results of the WGs before forwarding them to
 the NC;
- improve the debate in the GA (common discussion point among 
Constituencies).


Conclusion
----------

There seem to be consensus for a WG to start, addressing at least the 
point of creating a Constituency for individuals.
Other points raised are more controversial, and should be addressed by 
the Working Group.
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html