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

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 03:36:54PM -0500, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
> It will be difficult to compare the various positions without understanding
> what problem is being solved by the proposal.

Indeed.

> 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.

It is important, however, to not fall into the trap of thinking of ICANN
as a representative government.  It is important that different points
of view be represented, in the sense that they are expressed and
considered.  But there is no algorithm by which the representational
weight of the different stakeholders can be compared, and that is
explicitly not to be considered by the ICANN board, and it should not be
considered by the Names, either.  [Board members are explicitly supposed
to consider the good of the Internet and its stakeholders, have a
legally binding fiduciary responsibility to the corporation, and
explicitly are not to be representatives of the entities who elected
them (for those board members who are elected).]

Of course, adherence to this rule will not be perfect, and board and NC 
members will unavoidably tend to favor certain perspectives.  But this 
rule, with its acknowledged imperfections, is the only possible way to 
proceed -- as I said, there is no algorithm by which the 
representational weight of the various stakeholder communities can be 
weighed. 


-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain