[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[discuss] Individual representation

On Sat, Jun 26, 1999, Ellen Rony wrote, on a different list:
> Diane Cabell wrote:
> >How would at-large do outreach for enrollment?  The cooperation of the
> >registrars would be the single best source of potential members, IMHO.
> >There is a need to attract lots of interested parties without excluding
> >anyone but also to avoid an imbalance that might come from only posting at
> >organizational sites.  What associations claim lots of interested netizens
> >among their membership base?  The .edus have huge enrollments, but perhaps
> >not many who will be interested in names & numbers.  Any suggestions?
> Let me ask--why would people in the academic community want to join as
> ICANN members when they have no representation in the DNSO.

Let me ask -- why do engineers want to join the IETF when they have 
no representation on the IAB?

> Oh sure, they
> can be part of the general assembly but they cannot vote for Names Council
> representatives who vote for the DNSO BOD representatives.

IETF members get to be part of the "general assembly" of the IETF,
but they cannot vote for the IAB or IESG. 

Attendance at the IETF meetings is maybe 2500, and there are many
more who cannot attend and participate through email.  Obviously
these engineers are sadly deluded in their belief that they can have
any effect whatsoever on internet standards... 

Sorry for the rhetoric.  But the point is that in fact the GA will
have *substantial* input into the policy making process.

> OTOH, they can
> join the At Large members and vote for 9 BOD positions, but At large
> doesn't make policy recommendations.

This is a pernicious myth that grows out of Karl's massive
misunderstanding of the role of the directors.  In the normal course
of events policies are proposed by the SOs, but, as we have recently
seen, and now hopefully everyone clearly understands, the directors
can be more active if they feel it is warranted.  Therefore, the AL
directors have opportunity to introduce whatever policy they feel is
warranted.  These AL directors represent the AL membership just as
the NC reps of a Constituency represent that constituency, and they
have a far more direct path in the policy making process than the 
IP constituency does.

Furthermore, as noted above, the GA will in fact have a substantial 
impact on policy development.

This means that individuals have control over half the representation
on the Board, they have a means of getting policies directly inserted
in the process through their elected board representatives, and that
they have substantial impact if not control over the policy
recommendations that the DNSO makes.  

It is hard to weigh something as protean as political power, but it
is clear that individuals have *more than* half of the total power in

Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain

----- End forwarded message -----

Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain