Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 18:43:10 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>It is obvious that there are in fact groups (such as the ccTLDs and the
>registrars) that are in a unique relationships with ICANN, relationships
>that are not fairly or adequately addressed by a "one person, one vote"
>rule. The exact nature of these unique relationships is debatable, but
>that they exist is not. These groups demand, and in fact deserve, a
>special place at the table.
I agree that there is a need for constituencies for both political and
administrative reasons but apart from debating which groups should
have a constituency we should also (IMO) debate are all constituencies
Why should all constituencies get three seats on Names Council?? This
is very arbitrary and one can argue that some constituencies are far
more important than others.
There is a strong case IMO that the ccTLDS should have far more voting
strength than 1/7th of the DNSO which is in turn 1/6th of the Board so
is 1/42nd all up - especially as they are asked to fund 35% of the
Now one way around this is having the ccTLDS become a SO, but one can
also look at whether representation on the Names Council should be 3
votes per constituency.
<david at farrar dot com>
NZ Usenet FAQs - http://www.dpf.ac.nz/usenet/nz