[ga] Working DNSO constituencies define and qualify their voting members
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: [ga] Working DNSO constituencies define and qualify their voting members
- From: Derek Conant <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:41:21 -0700
- CC: email@example.com
- Organization: Domain Name System General Assembly (DNSGA) http://dnsga.org
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
Simply put, working DNSO constituencies define and qualify their voting
The GA has chosen the path of disorganization in not formally defining
and qualifying its voters and representatives. This is also why the
WG-Review failed. Identifying GA voters and representatives is what I
was describing through my suggesting 9 GA representatives to vote for
the whole GA group to move the process forward.
Examples of working DNSO constituencies that define and qualify their
voters and that appear to develop valid consensus within their groups
are listed below:
1. ccTLD Registries Constituency - require voters qualified as ccTLD
2. Commercial and Business Entities Constituency - require voters to be
qualified as Commercial and business entities.
3. gTLD Registries Constituency - require voters to be qualified as
4. ISPs and Connectivity Providers Constituency - require voters to be
qualified as ISPs and connectivity providers.
5. Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency - require voters to
be qualified as Non-commercial domain name holders.
6. Registrars Constituency - require voters to be qualified as ICANN
The GA should rethink it organizational structure, define and qualify
Some GA members did not like my suggestion of the GA choosing 9
representatives to review subject matter and vote for the whole GA.
Another suggestion is that the GA begin the process of evaluating its
organizational structure and look into defining voters by qualifying
voters as those who have demonstrated their participation in the GA
Maybe there should be rules that qualify voters? Maybe, in order to
vote, one must submit an on-topic post related to the subject matter
being voted on? My point is that voters should be qualified and show
their participation so that GA members and others can see how the GA
reached its positions concerning subject matter. I am all for giving
the helm to qualified voters. I am against counting undefined and
For this group to make any progress it must realize that it
organizational structure is too loose. An organization that is too
loose in its ability to set agenda and reach valid positions concerning
subject matter, will make it more difficult for others to make
progress. This is what I believe the GA has achieved thus far.
I am submitting this for constructive criticism.
DNSGA President and Chairman
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html