Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Rough Proposal C - eliminate NC,keepconstituencies
I have finally found a "thread" which I believe follows the mandate of the
I am business director of Hi-Tek Multimedia. We own, administer, market and
develop Second Level Domain names in .net, .org, .com, .tv, .ws and soon .la and
are working on a few more ccTLD's. We are also affiliate or partners with
several registries. We are an ISP and Network Solutions provider. We also work
in secure e-commerce development. One of our companies is an IPO dotcom corp. I
work extensively in trademarks and copyrights. So as far as transparency goes
anyone can pick a constituency to which I belong.
ICANN was established as a corporation, corporations historically have voting
blocks which are determined by the ownership of differing types of stock. Many
of the problems faced by ICANN would be eliminated by adopting/adapting the
model from which it was formed.
As a furtherance of this concept, I believe that Robert's Rules of Order can be
easily adapted to fit this type of WG protocol.
Roeland Meyer wrote:
> I just got back in town last night so this is a little delayed.
> I think that Milton has probably the most salient point here, than all the
> others combined.
> We've all been witness to various capture algorithms, wrt ICANN/DNSO. IMHO,
> this is the main reason we are having this WG now. The ICANN/DNSO gets
> captured by a faction and all the disenfranchised factions stop wanting to
> play. In business and engineering, one starts off with some sort of problem
> description, followed a clear path to a requirements definition. Only then,
> does one consider implementation details. We have all seen a few years worth
> of wasted effort because we HAVEN'T followed that process.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:email@example.com]
> > Sent: Monday, January 01, 2001 4:16 PM
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Cc: email@example.com
> > Subject: Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Rough Proposal C -
> > eliminate NC, keepconstituencies
> > I'll make the same response to you, Greg, that I just made to
> > Joop. You are putting forward solutions before documenting
> > problems convincingly. It will be very easy for the people
> > who control NC and the Board to ignore recommendations that
> > they don't like. It will be harder for them to ignore a
> > detailed bill of particulars that shows how and why the DNSO
> > is dysfunctional. We can append to that bill of particulars a
> > series of ideas about how to fix it, but that could be an
> > open-ended list of the most popular ideas, leaving details to
> > a future WG.
> > >>> Greg Burton <firstname.lastname@example.org> 12/31/00 13:26 PM >>>
> > Rough Proposal C - Eliminate the names council and keep the
> > concept of
> > "official" constituencies.
> > This is a rough proposal that takes a different, albeit
> > radical, approach
> > to the issue. I believe that this addresses many of the issues and
> > questions brought by the Board, recognizes the value of
> > "constituencies",
> > and provides mechanisms for improving both the DNSO functions
> > and output.
> > A. Proposal Structure and Process
> > 1. GA to elect ICANN board members directly
> > 1 person, 1 vote
> > all elected at once
> > runoff election to 6 nominees
> > top 3 elected
> > 2. Formal Constituencies Continue to Exist
> > a. rationale
> > 1. natural communities of interest
> > 2. recognition of a specific stake
> > 3. encourage diversity of processes and views
> > b. proposed role
> > 1. Provide discussion forum for
> > constituency-specific concerns
> > 2. Develop constituency position papers for
> > ublication to the Board, the GA, and Working Groups
> > 3. Participate in the creation of
> > working groups
> > 4. Do outreach to currently
> > non-involved parties
> > who might have a stake
> > c. creation and ongoing support
> > 1. Criteria for recognition
> > a. description of constituency
> > b. threshold # of GA members
> > who wish to
> > form it
> > c. immediate financial
> > contribution of
> > constituency (minimal = cost of setting up list, web
> > site, forums, and polls;
> > and hosting
> > for a year)
> > 2. Process of implementation
> > 3. Support requirements
> > 3. GA to elect a chair and small exec committee
> > a. role of chair
> > b. role of executive committee
> > 4. Working Groups provide the SO-wide research and consensus
> > development process on substantive issues.
> > a. creation
> > 1. board request
> > 2. executive committee request
> > 3. constituencies request - 3 or more?
> > 4. GA request - threshold of 25
> > members requesting it?
> > b. process
> > 5. Financing and Resources
> > a. secretariat
> > b. funding
> > c. required resources
> > B. Questions and friction areas addressed by the proposal
> > Proper definition of GA function and role
> > facilitation of GA member participation in the GA
> > facilitation of Constituency member participation in the GA
> > facilitation of goals for constituencies
> > facilitation of consensus-building goals
> > inclusive representation
> > facilitation of outreach goals
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> > email@example.com
> This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html