[wg-review] Constituencies Yes or Not?

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

To all.
I do agree with Karl that it is totally unnecessary to think about any work 
here before deciding about Constituencies and therefore about NC.

I agree with Peter that it is totally necessary to think about any work 
here if we do not have a "clean sheet" point of view as the @large Study 
Group is supposed to have (which means they may request DNSO changes).

Otherwise the only mission of this WG-Review, is to elect one or two Reps 
to the @large Study Group and to defend from inside the DNSO interests.

Jefsey


PS. Let suppose we have a "clean sheet+carte blanche" DNSO review to carry. 
We should then have to proceed from needs to solutions.

1. The ICANN is responsible for managing Protocol, IP addresses and Domain 
names in the best interest of the Internet community.

2. To that end it has a Staff directed by a BoD needing to take competent 
decisions.

3. To obtain the necessary competence the BoD is elected by area of 
competences. 3 for Protocols, 3 for IP addresses, 3 for domain names and 9 
for the user community.

4. The ICANN BoD is ending its starting period having 9 SO Directors and 5 
on 9 @large Directors elected. It decided a review of its own organization 
based on experience before committing to a final structure through:

4.1. a clean sheet study-building process over a period of 2 years which 
may lead to a complete reshape of the ICANN
4.2. a Working-Group Review study of the DNSO which has (by lack of other 
solution) housed up to now the @large concerns and up to now produced 
nohing real. This working group was decided before the @large Study Group 
giving an adequate lead. The NC has delayed its creation and decided to 
keep it only 15 days in existence.

The attitude of the NC appears to be absurd, but is consistent with the 
report here of Jonathan Weinberg.
It clearly shows that the NC must be the first item on the review list.

5. http://www.icann.org/santiago/membership-analysis.htm actually builds 
the ICANN as an "USG-down" stand-alone "up" organization building its 
"bottom" using Californian Golf Club rules (cf. text) and considering 
neither its technical neither its economical neither its governmental nor 
its international specificities.

This should be replaced for the DNSO by the standard international 
organization set-up:

5.1. every one competent in Domain Name may join the GA
5.2. we identify centers of interests (as per Karl) which may self-organize 
in Chapters, Associations, Cooperations, Constituencies ... as they think 
advisable (as per Peter)
5.3. these centers of interests unite at Chair or Rep level (keeping 
advantage of the past fightings quoted by Kent Crispin) into the Name 
Council (NC).
5.4. New Centers of Interest may join the NC if accepted by the NC.
5.5. a DNSO advisory committee may help working relations between 
constituencies and may include guest groups (NC candidates or not)
5.6. the NC elects its representatives to the BoD.