Re: [ga] Business Constituency and the GA

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

On 22:56 21/11/01, Peter Dengate Thrush said:
>That is why, incidentally, the DNSO needs to remain as it is, as the
>debating chamber for the development of consensus policies affecting the
>g-TLDs, including those interested in and affected by gTLD policies, while
>the ccSO* is the forum for developing both the binding and the voluntary
>policies across the ccTLds.

Dear Peter,
that would be perfect would the NICSO (you just demonstrated that you are 
more acting as a NIC than a pure TLD Manager) would accept a GA - which 
incidentally would be very near from the @large should the position 
france@large defends as well as China/Vietnam and many others prevailed.

Actually the whole SO system is inadequate because of its rigidity. The 
true governance building block are the Constituency as a group and the 
@large.as an individual. SOs should only be specialized permanent WG for 
Constituencies and @large (forming their GA) and Constituencies should be 
able to share in as many SOs they need.

One really feels that ICANN is first the art of complexifying the simplest.
Jefsey

--
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