RE: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)

[Jean-Michel Becar <Jean-Michel.Becar@etsi.fr>]

As I fully agree with you, the constituencies are the heart of the problem
but how to change this?

If my memory is not too bad, the constituency model was hardly discussed
during the DNSO creation process - and this was the major issue. And today
how to reach consensus on the decrease of the number of constituencies? 

I don't think that IP people or others will accept to merge with another
constituency... and even if we succeed some group of people will create
sub-constituencies and we will return at the beginning.

Now to try to remove the constituency model will be also a hard task and it
will habe a deep impact on the Names Council. THis is a tricky probem.

An intermediate model could be to have only 3 constituencies:
- Registries (ccTLDs, and gTLDs), 
- Registrars 
- Users (Trademark and intellectual property, Commercial and Business
entities, ISPs and connectivity providers ,Non-commercial domain name
holders )

and this model will give an aswer to the individual domain name holders as
they can be integrated with the users.

But frankly I don 't see how to manage to get rid of the actual situation.

Regards,
Jean-Michel Becar
Project Manager
www.etsi.org
tel: + 33 4 92 94 43 15
fax: +33 4 92 38 52 15
gm: +33 6 82 80 19 31



-----Original Message-----
From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:Harald@Alvestrand.no]
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 9:40 AM
To: roberto.gaetano@voila.fr; ga@dnso.org
Subject: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)


To the point of the review comittee deliberations that says:

>-  Does the current constituency division minimize the effectiveness
>     of the DNSO and NC?

Just for the record, I think that the constituency structure of the DNSO is 
a fundamental reason for the DNSO's problems.

The constituency structure has led to:

- Polarization, as those who are in the DNSO to represent a constituency 
feel obliged to serve that constituency's interests whether that makes 
sense in a global context or not

- Underrepresentation, since many interested voices have trouble fitting 
into one or another of the constituencies

- Overrepresentation, since many interested voices (Business and IP are the 
most obvious) find themselves natural parts of several constituencies

- Misrepresentation, since the selection of a few people to act as 
spokesmen for a constituency obscures the sometimes significant differences 
of opinion within a constituency

I believe part of the problems the DNSO has had in reaching anything like a 
consensus position on *anything* is rooted in the constituency structure.
(It is also rooted in the presence of a number of very loud voices that 
should, on the basis of democratic process, be heard, but where the owners 
of the voices have neither the inclination nor the temperament to reach for 
consensus. Reaching consensus in a loud environment will always be hard.)

The constituency structure is a failure and should be abandoned.

              Harald

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