Re: [ga] Structure Taskforce Update

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

Thank you David for this summary.

I like the scenario. Both ALSO and DNSO have to meet on the domain
names policy, it is an elegant way to do it.

> This of course touches on wider issues such as whether the ALSO (and
> an IDNHC) should be limited to domain name holders/admin contacts.  

No, definitely not. 

There is a great need to have a forum which purpose would be to consider 
names _and_ IP addresses (and applications) together in the end-user interest.

Elisabeth Porteneuve
--

----Original message----
>From owner-ga@dnso.org Sun Jan  6 09:29 MET 2002
X-UIDL: 5H]"!m0i"!d\a!!1b3!!
From: DPF <david@farrar.com>
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: [ga] Structure Taskforce Update
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 21:28:11 +1300
Message-ID: <lj1g3ugutcggpimf14kfc93aah101cohnd@4ax.com>

An update and request for feedback from those interested in the DNSO
Structure Taskforce.

An initial discussion paper was published (v2) on 3 December at
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/doc00003.doc

I posted some feedback on 15 December at
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00056.html

The TF Chair followed up at
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00057.html on the issue
of where policy making on domain name issues should happen and posted
four models, being :

1. Status quo - no ALSO, no individuals domain name holders
constituency (IDNHC) within the DNSO. Result: lack of individuals'
representation.
 
2. ALSO, no change DNSO. 
Result: Board may get contradictory advise, DNSO role in policy
weakened, relevance of today's GA uncertain.
 
3. ALSO, new IDNHC within DNSO
Result: Board may get contradictory advise, DNSO role in policy
weakened, GA reverts to its intended role as a unifying assembly,
duplication of individuals voice in policy making.
 
4. Different ALSO (direct elections to board, but policy directed via
the DNSO), otherwise no change DNSO
Result: Board gets consistent advise, DNSO role in policy
strengthened, GA reverts to its intended role as a unifying assembly.


Option 4 has been looked at in more detail.  I posted (at
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00069.html) that there
could well be advantage in having an ALSO perform a dual role of
electing Board members as an SO does but also function within the DNSO
as a constituency.  I stated that I believed that if one went down
this route the ALSO should get to elect 3 members of the Names Council
as well as directly electing Board members.

The TF Chair responded
(http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00070.html) and has
put forward a scenario which is:

1. ALSO is formed and directly elects 5/6/9 Board members (as ALSC
proposal but lets not argue about the number here)
2. ALSO also elects 10/12 member Administrative Council (as ALSC
proposal but with an administrative role to organise the SO and
outreach downwards on policy)
3. ALSO Administrative Council selects 3 members (or the 3 top
geographically diverse of the directly-elected council election list)
appointed to Names Council to input on policy matters. The 3 AL Names
Council reps get full voting rights on policy issues on the NC (but do
not vote at the annual election for DNSO Board members).
4. The individuals petitioning for an individual domain name holders
constituency within the DNSO are encouraged to participate in the ALSO
and become AL Administrative Council members and reps to the NC.
5. The GA reverts to its intended role of uniting all DNSO
constituencies (and expands to include at least the AL Administrative
Council and NC reps).


Feedback specifically on the scenario above, but also on any aspects
of the work to date, is welcome.

I see two main benefits of possibly having the ALSO perform a dual
role.  They are:

1) It may cut down on considerable duplication in what may be a
limited volunteer pool of participation in both an ALSO and an IDNHC. 

2) Already the Board and staff ignore the DNSO as the place where
domain name policy should be formulated.  If the ALSO functions
outside the DNSO in terms of advising on domain name policy then it
gives even greater carte blanche for Board and staff to pick and
choose what they do.  

This of course touches on wider issues such as whether the ALSO (and
an IDNHC) should be limited to domain name holders/admin contacts.  

As I said feedback welcome.

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
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