Re: [wg-review] DNSO recommendations

[Andrew Moulden <andrew@FoolStop.com>]

Apologies if what follows is poorly formatted; I accidentally deleted 
Jefsey's message from my mail server and had to paste it from the archive.

The model has, I think, several compelling elements. Specific comments below.

Andrew


At 12:54 17/03/01 +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

>The DNSO model I support is rather simple and not so different from the 
>existing one - once the voting aspects have been changed.
>1. The DNSO is to be a Consultant to the BoD on DN issues. Only DN holders 
>should be allowed as members.

Agree on function; disagree on exclusion of non-DN holders, one basis being 
that no such restriction is currently placed on GA membership.


>2. The DNSO is made of the GA.

Absolutely. And with no proxy-GA consisting of nonaligned members!


>3. The GA Members may create Special Interest Groups of different kinds 
>(Clubs, Interest Centers, Associations, etc.. The existing Constituencies 
>should stay unaffected as SIGs.) SIGs may chose their own rules. Every 
>declared SIG (even not yet/no more acknowledged by the GA) has a right to 
>a DNSO mailing list and sub-site.

Agree, subject to objectively measurable safeguards on competence and size.


>4. The NC is a coordination list gathering SIG's Chairs. Acceptation of 
>SIG within the NC is voted by the GA annually or at the demand of 10% of 
>the GA Members.

This would create such safeguards. Would suggest more frequent votes but a 
statutory application period of not less than 3 months.


>5. The BoD Members are elected by the GA. Nominations must be seconded by 
>the a certain number of NC Members (so candidates are serious enough and 
>acknowledged by the community). One of the Directors elect will have to 
>represent a ccTLDs.

This seems muddier. Procedural role for NC? Balanced BoD representation for 
SIGs?


>6. Chair and co-Chair of the GA are nominated by GA Members and elected by 
>GA Members.

Agree.


>7. Reports to the BoD can be refused by the NC for poor quality or lack of 
>consensus. Such refusal shall call on 2 vetoes by two GA accepted SIG.

Appreciate the rationale here; exact mechanism would require further 
discussion. For example, the constant requirement of 2 vetoes could become 
weaker over time as more SIGs were created.


>8. DNSO will be informed of every DN related issue and commercial 
>negotiation. No DN related decision will be taken by the BoD without 
>preceding conclusions by the DNSO. Emergency decision will be possible, 
>but for a limited period of time. Jefsey

Agree in principal; necessary conditions for such emergency decisions would 
need to be elaborated upon at some length to ensure proper accountability.

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html