DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

[ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform

Many thanks, Danny, for your comments. I think in many ways they 
coincide with some of the ERC's thinking behind the Blueprint.


At 2:50 PM -0400 8/1/02, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
>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.


Stuart Lynn
President and CEO
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Tel: 310-823-9358
Fax: 310-823-8649
Email: lynn@icann.org
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 >>>