Re: [ga] GA position on the Structure TF report

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 04:11:53 EST, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

>In a message posted to the IDNO list David Farrar writes:  "There is no way 
>at all any individuals constituency would be able to raise funds to match 
>what the business groups pay.  If there is ever an individual's constituency 
>the DNSO will have to recognise that individuals pay most of their money 
>through the registrars, ISPs and registries.  

Yep and I think this also applies to any ALSO.  Individuals will never
be able to collect funds to the extent businesses can and the notion
that there is no difference between a group of businesses and a group
of individuals is fundamentally flawed.

>This is one reason I think the 
>possibility of having the ALSO perform a dual role as an individuals 
>constituency within the DNSO has merit.  It will possibly avoid serious 
>duplication of expenses."

Not just expenses but also possibly key personnel.  

>The latest recommendation from the IPC to the NC Structure Task Force Policy 
>stipulates that ALSO input to the Board is only to be channeled by way of the 
>DNSO (in which the ALM would have a mere three votes in a 24-member council), 
>and further, "no policy recommendations would come from the ALSO separately". 
> 
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00086.html
>
>This proposition is a blatant attempt to attack the At-Large and should not 
>be supported by the GA's representative.

I welcome the feedback on this.  There are pros and cons to having any
ALSO act within the DNSO in terms of domain name policy or directly
advise the Board.

The worry I have is that if the Board receives contradictory advice
from the DNSO and the ALSO that the DNSO will win out 99 times out of
100.   It also greatly increases the opportunities for the Board (on
advice of staff) to just pass their own personal policy with no
reference to either the DNSO or ALSO.

Now as long as there is no individual representation within the DNSO I
fully support the ALSO should advise the Board directly as some
representation is better than none.

However if individuals through perhaps the ALSO did have
representation within the DNSO it is a harder call.  The DNSO is
finely balanced at the moment between various interests and three
extra votes for individuals could make a real difference to some
votes.

To some degree I see it as whether it is better to have 100% of the
votes of an SO which will probably be ignored 99% of the time or to
have 13% of the vote of an SO which gets listened to say half the
time.

Note that regardless of which model is adopted the ALSO would still
appoint their Board members directly.

As I said at the beginning feedback is welcome on the options.  

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
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