RE: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

["Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

|> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch. wrote:-
|To give representives from organisations
additional weight in any discussions requires their actual representation to
be
validated.  There is often reference made to such representation as
providing
high numbers of participation.  I contend that unless the representation is
clearly understood we can not assume such participation.

[Joanna]- I agree with you that high numbers of participation cannot be
assumed unless there is full knowledge of how each representative refers to
others within their organization, but equally, we cannot expect DNSO to
police the internal affairs of others to ensure compliance with some
arbitrary standard for day to day operating procedures. Applied globally,
the mind boggles. Added to which, members of a particular organization may
decide their representative should have carte blanche on all substantive
issues, then what. The question is, what evidence of participation can
possibly be stipulated as a requirement for those purporting to represent
high numbers? I cannot think of any that could not be concocted or fudged,
which amounts to status quo. Perhaps you have a solution that I missed?

|> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch. wrote:-
True, individuals may participate in any way they deem fit.

[Joanna] It would be great if true, but individuals have no means to
participate in a meaningful way. I contend that if they did, DNSO would not
use numerical values of a group to determine the weight and value of it's
representative's discussions, hence some concerns expressed here would
evaporate in the process.

|> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch. wrote:-
One of the issues I am exploring here is how much value is associated with
such representatives
within the DNSO.  Can we truly say there are so many participants in the
process
when we do not have a clear understanding of the procedures representatives
employ within their member structures to ensure participation and to be
truly
representative of their members.  To my mind, assigning a proxy vote does
not
imply participation.

[Joanna] In my capacity as WG-Review member and Editor of
http://www.internetstakeholders.com, I would be most interested to have a
copy of this data when available. But it's not just analysis of member
structures of organizations that is needed, it goes all the way to the
bottom, involving corporate structures, and analysis of procedures they
employ to elicit feedback on issues from their customer base, employees and
smaller subsidiary business, all of whom have a stake.

| The remedy is simple.
|> Provide a completely separate and affordable option for those people to
be
|> represented within DNSO, and on an equal footing. I would add only that
it
|> is a disgrace that DNSO has not addressed this issue to date.

|> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch. wrote:-
I tend to feel representatives of larger groups are given too much weight
and
that they should be considered on a par with individuals.  For the DNSO to
place
higher value on such representation without clearly defining the reasoning
is of
concern to me.  To me, the DNSO should be advocating higher direct
participation
and enabling individuals to have an equal say.

I agree. It's worrying and I question whether any group can represent the
best interests of both their customer base and employees. After all, one
pays the salary of the other and that would appear to be a conflict of
interest.

Regards,
Joanna


--
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