[ga] A new model

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

Michael,

Thank you for your comments and clarification.  I can well appreciate your 
argument that the "there is a danger when grossly unrepresentative 
constituencies attempt to micromanage or impose their viewpoints without 
understanding the basics."  For several years now, the General Assembly has 
served as a vehicle to facilitate such understanding, but as a tool it 
remains largely unused by most Names Council members that have collectively 
decided to forego the benefits of cross-constituency debate, discourse and 
edification.

I had occasion last night to reflect upon Rick Wesson's comments regarding 
the failure of the constituency system.  Ultimately a constituency model can 
only work if there is a facile add/delete/modify mechanism associated with 
it.  Some constituencies are so small and inactive that they rightfully 
should be retired.  The NCDNHC, for example, has only two dozen paying member 
organizations, is more than $30,000 in debt to the DNSO and hasn't updated 
its website in more than half a year; list discussion is virtually 
non-existent.  The ISPs haven't updated their own site in more than a year 
and resist the prospect of additional task forces because they have no 
members that will come forward to participate in any new TFs; they also have 
no discussion list.  The BC hides their lack of member participation behind 
the artifice of a non-archived list, and the IPC didn't even notice that its 
own archives have been down for more than two and a half months (and no more 
than a half dozen members ever discuss anything on that list anyway).  

As it stands, we have no manner by which we can "delete" these constituencies 
nor hold them accountable to certain minimum standards to justify their 
continued involvement.  Neither do we have criteria in place to allow for the 
establishment of provisional constituencies.  Complicating matters is the 
registry/registrar position to refuse to approve ICANN funding for DNSO 
Secretariat services which creates a severe financial burden for others that 
seek to enter into the fold.  Rick happens to be right.  The constituency 
model hasn't worked, and it's not going to work.

The ERC proposal only makes a bad situation worse by perpetuating this 
seriously flawed model, and by continuing to deny representation and voting 
rights to the single largest, most involved, knowledgeable and active 
constituency in the ICANN process -- the membership of the General Assembly.

The minutes of your Amsterdam meeting make it clear that the registries seek 
to form a Contracting Parties Supporting Organization so that the views of 
your respective members can flow unfiltered to the Board without the prospect 
of being mangled/filtered by the current DNSO process.  There is merit in 
that proposal.  This would force the remaining constituencies and the 
non-constituency members of the GA to re-organize into a Registrants 
Supporting Organization which might then allow for the establishment of new 
criteria to guage the actual viability of those that seek to join the new SO. 
 

What is the current view of the registrars regarding the desirability of 
forming such a contracting parties SO?  If the registrars are willing to 
adopt this proposal, it might bode well for ICANN as a whole.




 


--
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