Re: [wg-review] Rough Proposals A - H?

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

The list to which you refer is not what I intended by rough proposal, and I
thought that was obvious. At any rate, if you think these 9 items ought to
be added to the list of rough proposals, then let's do that.

Rod


----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Burton" <sidna@feedwriter.com>
To: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] Rough Proposals A - H?


> At 02:04 PM 12/30/00, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
> >What is the matter with you? Your response would have been more helpful
if
> >you simply listed the other rough proposals. Would you do us the favor of
> >listing the 8 or 9 rough proposals? I mentioned the two I knew existed.
>
> Oh golly, something is the matter with me because I assumed you read this,
> since you replied? sheesh.
>
> To: <wg-review@dnso.org>,
>          "Greg Burton" <sidna@feedwriter.com>
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Reformulation Questions
>
> 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
>  >
>  >
>
>
>