[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 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