DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga-review] Individuals' Constituency

At 11:40 5/05/01 -0400, Danny Younger wrote:

>I would like to see the GA petition the Board for acceptance as a
>Constituency in the Names Council.
>Let the discussion begin.

Thank you, Mr Chairman, for expressing your personal opinion as to a
possible approach of representing Individual stakeholders.

This idea (Greg Burton's , originally?) was expessed by myself in Melbourne
as a possible compromise solution. Roberto seemed to like it, but it found
no good reception in the NC. Even the NCDNHC, by mouth of Vany Martinez,
was against it and preferred a specific self-organized constituency.

I think Vany's view  is right.  I have though about such a GA a lot.  The
current GA is a poor substitute for an Individuals' constituency (IC) ,
simply because all other stakeholders are represented there as well.
Creating a "GA-Individuals' Constituency" (GIC) guarantees both an
ineffective GA and a indecisive IC. 

The GA will not represent any consensus position about Individual DN
holders' rights, because it is in the interests of a powerful and highly
interested minority to keep the GA divided on such issues and maintain the
status quo.

With  a chair who is partial to his own point of view, we may not see a GA
comes to express its majority will at all.

My own view is, that after the recognition in principle of an IC
(Individuals' Constituency), the GA should strive to become a "Chamber of
Representatives", much larger than the NC, but limited to , say,  300 members.

A GA member will be required to 

1. Agree with and follow the rules of decorum and civil discourse.  
2. (and this is of course open for debate)  prove  by endorsement that he
represents at least 5 (open for debate--but the initial threshold should be
low) other individuals.

The endorsement numbers of each GA "candidate" should be publicly listed.

In this way, we have created a position of  honour, service and obligation
for each GA member and we increase the chance that the resolutions of the
GA are taken more seriously, either by the NC, that should be elected by
the GA and from GA members, and by the Board.

My 2 cts. 
It may be a good idea e to continue the discussion on the future shape and
role of the GA on the GA-review list.

Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of    The Polling Booth

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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>