Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Reformulation Questions

["Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <rod@cyberspaces.org>]

Good points Greg. I think several comments have pointed out that the
"proposals" or positions to modify the structure of the DNSO may make
several assumptions that have not been fully analyzed. Although it appears
that some us think the DNSO's structure needs modification to make the
organization more productive, we may have different reasons for this
position.

It will be difficult to compare the various positions without understanding
what problem is being solved by the proposal. For my part, I see the problem
with the current structure of the DNSO as a matter of representation of all
of the relevant stakeholders. I think a proposal should be  directed toward
fixing this problem, rather than addressing what are probably structural
issues beyond the scope of this WG.

Rod



----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Burton" <sidna@feedwriter.com>
To: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Reformulation Questions


> At 08:08 AM 12/29/00, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
> >It looks like we have at least two proposals:
>
> None of the positions are yet detailed enough to qualify as proposals, and
> it appears there are at least nine positions, but this is a good jumping
> off point for discussing this question
>
> >1) that the "official" constituency structure be abandoned, and open
> >constituencies replace them;
>
> This goes directly to issues of representation in the NC, and therefore
the
> ICANN board - without a specific mechanism for that representation, or a
> call to abandon the concept of the NC (and replacing it with x), it's a
> position that might be held by any number of people who actually disagree
> on implementation. This needs clarification, it would seem:
>
> No votes by constituencies, election by GA - 1
> Individual domain name holders get one vote each - 1
> Don't know - 1
> Letting things resolve as they may without locked in constituencies/Free
> Choice - 2
> the current review process should be used to reformulate the
constituencies - 1
>
> >2) that the current constituency structure be liberalized to allow any
> >constituency to join the DNSO based on a list of objective criteria of
> >representation;
>
> Liberalized is perhaps a loaded word, there - I would suggest
> modified.  I'm not sure, in any event, how the structure can be
> liberalized, though certainly the process for constituency creation can be
> opened up.
>
> In addition to this one,  the following positions have been recorded in
the
> informal poll:
>
> 3. That the current structure be changed by combining provider groups. (no
> support - 0 votes)
> 4. That the current structure be changed by combining user groups. (3
votes)
> 5. That the current structure be changed by a combination of 3 and 4 (4
votes)
>
> These positions could use some clarification, at least for me, in terms of
> which specific constituencies might be combined.
>
> 6. That the current structure be changed by adding an individuals'
> constituency. (motion made and seconded in the list)
> 7. That the current structure be changed by adding a "chartered tld"
> constituency. (motion made and seconded in the list)
> 8. That the current structure be changed by doing both 6 and 7.
>
> This is a slight overstatement - the motions were made to develop
> sub-working groups to discuss them, but I'm assuming that the intent is to
> create them.
>
> 9. The current structure should not be changed. (3 votes)
>
> >2a) if the constituency structure is liberalized, criteria
> >should be established to determine the appropriate number of seats on the
NC
> >for each constituency.
>
> I believe this is actually a separate question, and applies to several of
> the positions above.
>
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> sidna@feedwriter.com
>
>