Re: [ga] Evolution - GA
Very interesting Jefsey,
This is such a dramatic picture of the "evolution of the GA" that
it should be enshrined.
Listen up folks;
The GA is not going anywhere soon, the NC is not evaporating as perhaps
it should. There are no easy answers alla TR and AS.
We have work to do and I ask TR and AS to set up working groups and
utilize our sublists and get some work done around here.
Looky here, I am a Philosopher, degree from NAU 1980, so I have a right
to pontithicate and strategize the future. The rest of you who have
engineering degrees and the like and need to get things done. NOW get things
Everyone has a job to do and a specific ability. Cam Ong, right
now TR get organized and make this a viable unit. There is no other,
we are the ones so get it together and lets' start some work.
Sincerely, with hope,
Jefsey Morfin wrote:
Bravo for opening the floor on this matter with good questions. However
On 15:19 11/04/02, Philip Sheppard said:
Problem - self-organisation
and representation have proved challenges for individual domain name holders.
There was no problem per se. There was a centralized vision ported
by Joop Teernstra also a good promoter of the cause. The need is real.
The vision IMO is wrong, and at least shown itself sterile. Both at the
IDNO and at the icannatlarge.com. But you cannot correct the errors if
you don't try.
So, use the at-large
structure to provide this organisation and to elect its NC reps.
This is the Denis Jennings compromise which founded the DNSO as
a failure (as Joe SImis testified) unbalanced witgh the ASO and PSO. The
@large are the most active among the real owners of the Internet. The ICANN
is a system to organize the coopetition to service that owners. The DNSO
is an interface off all the stakeholders (servcices and owners) on the
specific issue of the DNs. A very specific issue in the naming space area
which is a specific issue amng the concerns of the @large.
I am afraid this is also a loop into something which does not exist.
May I recall you that the ALSC has identified that their problem was to
gather enough @large people. They "discovered" that Individual Domain Names
holders could be their pool of voters, with the huge success we know. Now
you have a problem in finding Indvidual Domain Names Holders. You "discover"
that the @lagre could be a pool of IDNH voters... I am afraid that at the
end of the day it will resolve to Joop, Esther and Mike.
Then, get all constituencies
via their NC reps to vote for the DNSO chair, who simultaneously chairs
the NC and GA. (I float this idea safe in the knowledge it won't be me.)
This idea is worth consideration but it can work only if (as you
point it) any consituency may be created and aggregated. The most urgent
ones being the Registrant Constituency and the Users Constituency and a
reform of the BC to represent the interests of those doing a business for
which the DN is important. Also that all the @large concerns out of DN
issues are addressed eleswhere. End the last but notthe least that Constituencies
may participate in different SOs, so we can keep the ccTLDs.
This way the DNSO will gather:
- those offering DNs on general (gTLD), national (ccTLD), specialized
- those selling them (Registrars and Reselles./ISPs)
- those registering them (Registrants: individual, corporate, bulk/consultants)
- those protecting them (IPC)
- those using them (Users and Consummes)