DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

[ga-review] Another option...

A personal opinion...

At a time when certain members of this Assembly are advocating enhanced
representation by way of the creation of new constituencies, I continue to
see glaring deficiencies in the Names Council constituency approach.
Yesterday's Names Council teleconference was yet another example of the
abject failure of the constituency process.  It has now been two months
since the Names Council adopted their "Business Plan" in Melbourne (first
put forth on 20 February), and as yet none of our constituency
representatives have been able to get together in their "interim committees"
to formulate the basic "terms of reference" that will allow any type of work
to get done.

They all "hope" to have it ready by Stockholm.  Something as basic as "terms
of reference" could have been formulated while having a dinner in Melbourne,
yet we must wait 3 months for the NC do actually do some work.  The process
is obviously not working.  If this is how constituencies rise to the
challenge, we are better served by eliminating the constituency structure
altogether and replacing it with a better model.

The ICANN Board has asked us to consider possible changes in the structure
of the DNSO (resolution 01.28).  DNSO Directions is a topic on the upcoming
Board agenda.   I remind the members of the GA that within the Review WG a
majority of the members were in favor of replacing the constituency
structure completely (along the lines put forth by Director Auerbach).  It's
time to move forward on conclusions already reached.

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 >>>