RE: [wg-review] Constituencies
The problem is that, such a move requires a leap of faith and trust. The BoD
is not so athletic.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dassa [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 12:24 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: [wg-review] Constituencies
> |>-----Original Message-----
> |>From: On Behalf Of Kent Crispin
> |>Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 1:51 AM
> |>Subject: Re: [wg-review] Constituencies
> |>The "fluid constituencies" model was discarded as unworkable.
> |> It's one of those things that sounds good at a shallow
> level, but when
> |>you got to the details no one could figure out a way for it
> to work. It sounds
> |>good, but in fact it changes the voting structure, which means it
> |>changes the decision mechanism, which means that the decision
> |>process is in relatively constant flux, which means
> ultimately that you need
> |>someone to oversee the constituency changes, but who would
> |>that be? The ICANN board was frequently cited as the
> ultimate oversight body for
> |>constituency changes, but the ICANN board simply didn't want to be
> |>involved in overseeing a constantly changing structure.
> I would suspect it was discarded as unworkable as it would be
> very difficult to control. If you approach all the problems
> attributed to the model in a systematic manner, it is not
> unworkable. That is unless there is an insistance the model
> not be empowered to be self sufficient and control itself.
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
> This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
> Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org 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 email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html