[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[council] [ga] GA representation on the Names Council
FYI,
>Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 09:49:45 -0500
>From: John C Klensin <klensin@mci.net>
>Subject: [ga] GA representation on the Names Council
>To: ga@dnso.org
>X-Mailer: Mulberry (Win32) [2.0.0b1, s/n U-301227]
>Sender: owner-ga@dnso.org
>
>I've just realized (being a bit slow) that a lot of the
>frustration that has periodically filled the GA list with noise
>and name-calling is due to the perception that the NC was
>composed of people appointed by Board-authorized constituencies
>and that there was no possibility for people who were not part
>of those constituencies to have a voice. It it equally clear
>that recognition of the (an) IDNO won't solve the problem --
>someone will always feel left out.
>
>I also realized that this has some similarity to the problem the
>IETF faced some years ago in trying to figure out how to select
>a (quite powerful) nominations committee in an organization that
>has no membership list.
>
>So, a proposal, independent of the chair selection process or
>anything else...
>
>(i) the NC be immediately expanded by three members. If I
>correctly recall the bylaws, they can't be given the vote
>without ICANN Board action, but it should be possible for the NC
>to seat them as observers (with the same standing to participate
>in discussions) on its own initiative while the formalities are
>being pursued.
>
>(ii) All three people selected to these positions will serve
>for one year. If any resign or decline to serve, the
>replacement will be only for the duration of the original year.
>The intent it to get this mess straightened out during the year
>-- turning the GA into another constituency is not, IMO, a
>desirable long-term approach-- and replace it with whatever
>permanent arrangements are needed/appropriate.
>
>(iii) Those eligible to serve will be the entire
>contents/membership of the -announce and -ga lists as of
>(ideally) last Friday. Selection of a date in the recent past
>prevents "stacking" by a rash of subscriptions. If capturing
>last Friday's list is not feasible, the list contents should be
>captured as of the time this note is received at the
>secretariat. In the interests of fairness, the secretariat
>should add everyone who has been excluded from the list within
>the next month for antisocial behavior back into the pool.
>
>(iv) The _sole_ qualifications for these seats shall be
>
> (a) Membership in the GA, as defined above by list
>membership
>
> (b) Willingness to provide the secretariat and the NC a
> potentially-authenticatable name (e.g., one that might
> appear on a driver's license, passport, or national
> identity card, rather than a network persona), postal
> mailing address, telephone number, and other reasonable
> information to establish that the emailing address belongs
> to a person.
>
>(v) Within that pool of qualified names, an ordering will be
>established by random selection (reference below to a procedure
>that is known to be tediously fair; let's not waste a lot of
>energy discussing this or other ways to get randomness). The
>first three names chosen will be seated as Names Council
>members. If one or more decline to serve, or subsequently
>resign, he or she will be replaced by the next person on the
>list. Beyond those seated, the ordering of the names will not
>be revealed in order to prevent gaming the system or one person
>resigning in favor of another (to preserve randomness, people
>should be encouraged to serve by any means necessary, including
>fear that they might be replaced by someone they would consider
>unacceptable).
>
>Now, the weakness in (v) is that someone (or some very small
>number of people) have to be trusted to do the computations and
>then keep the list. For convenience, I'd favor turning this
>over to ICANN staff or the board, and letting Mike or Esther do
>it. But some of those who are feeling least represented
>obviously don't trust them. It probably should be someone who
>is not actively involved in the current DNSO fray -- perhaps we
>could try to pull Tamar Frankel out of semi-retirement on this
>subject (warning: I haven't consulted her about willingness to
>serve -- this proposal will come as more of a surprise to her
>than it does to you). Or someone might have a better idea. But
>I'd personally be reasonably comfortable having the NC or Board
>make the choice, with the main requirement being integrity.
>
>Anyway, does that appeal to anyone? Comments from NC readers of
>this list? Other suggestions?
>
>If we can't trust elections, maybe we can trust Gauss.
>
> john
>
>Reference: the current randomization procedure used in the IETF
>is described in
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eastlake-selection-04.
>txt
>It has been nit-picked extensively by experts (on both
>randomization and nit-picking), for whatever that is worth.
>
>
>