[ga] Evolution - GA
Thomas, thanks for posing some excellent questions. I urge Council to respond. Let me add a personal reflection (not as NC, not as BC) on the relationship NC/GA, and hence the role of the GA in policy making.
Objective Establishing coherence in the DNSO.
Assumptions (the world as it should be and may have been envisaged in the current by-laws)
All relevant and significant stakeholders should have the possibility of representation in a constituency.
The GA is the rallying point for all constituencies.
Therefore a logical conclusion is that,
- The GA mail list and the constituency liaison list should be one and the same.
- the GA chair and the NC chair should be one and the same.
Why has this not happened?
The GA mail list became a public chat list of a public who were either,
A. stakeholders that were or could be represented by the constituencies
or B. others who felt they were not represented by the constituencies (notably individual name holders who were not businesses or non-commercial organisations).
If the groups in B are relevant and significant stakeholders, get them to form a constituency and participate in the NC.
Problem - self-organisation and representation have proved challenges for individual domain name holders. So, use the at-large structure to provide this organisation and to elect its NC reps.
Then, get all constituencies via their NC reps to vote for the DNSO chair, who simultaneously chairs the NC and GA. (I float this idea safe in the knowledge it won't be me.) Thoughts?