RE: [council] [ga] GA representation on the Names Council

[Dennis Jennings <Dennis.Jennings@ucd.ie>]

What an interesting idea.  Worth thinking about.

Dennis

--------------------------------
Dennis Jennings
Dennis.Jennings@ucd.ie
Phone:  +353 87 220 8225 (Mobile)
Fax:  +353 1 495 1324

On Wednesday, November 17, 1999 8:45 PM, Raul  Echeberria 
[SMTP:raul@inia.org.uy] wrote:
>
> 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.
> >
> >
> >