DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] Names Council Resolution on Reform

Dear Vint, Stuart, and Alejandro:

I wish to express my concern regarding the ill-considered Names Council 
Resolution on Reform submitted today.

The Blueprint on Reform called for a 16-member Council and thoughtfully 
recognized that the size of the Council may change from time to time as new 
provisional constituencies become voting constituencies.  In calling for 
three representatives per constituency the Council has failed to bear in mind 
that others are soon to join the mix, groups such as:  

Academic and public entities 
Individual domain name holders 
Consumer and civil society organizations 
Small business users 

Each one of these provisional entities will require a seat at the table and 
representation in equal measure.  Under the Council's plan we would begin 
with eighteen members representing the current constituencies, another three 
voting members elected by the NomCom, and one non-voting liaison appointed by 
the GAC -- that's already 22 members, and yet we have to make room for 
perhaps 12-15 more members as the provisional constituencies are added.   
This is a patently unworkable situation (as we can all appreciate that overly 
large Boards or Councils can quickly become cumbersome and unwieldy tools 
that will not serve our organization's need for efficiency).

With regard to the issue of geographic and cultural diversity, as long as the 
constituencies remain international, and as long as constituencies continue 
to elect their representatives, such representation will remain international 
in character and will reflect the cultural diversity of the community.
With regard to the final points in the Council resolution:

1.  Workload:  The workload of a council member may readily be shared with 
non-Council members thus enhancing involvement at the constituency membership 
level.  Council's argument does not justify the need for an additional 
constituency voting representative.
2.  Participation:  Participation in Task Forces need not be limited only to 
Council representatives (opening up the process to others would enhance the 
Council's claim to truly having a bottom-up process), and candidly, Task 
Forces have already proven themselves to be a failed policy-development model.
3.  Outreach:  Outreach to multiple regions may be accomplished in a number 
of ways, including the Business Constituency's own rapporteur approach in 
which not all such rapporteurs are Council members -- additional 
representation cannot be justified by this argument either. 

The ERC's vision of a reasonably small Steering Council has merit (if you 
actually believe that such a Council actually engenders some type of "added 
value", a highly debatable point).  

In my estimation, the Council has not thought in terms of the best interest 
of the Corporation, choosing instead to advance their own constituent 
self-interest.  I encourage you to reject their recommendation.

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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>