Re: [ga] Re: Restructuring Proposal

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Danny and all assembly members,

  As has been time and again accurately determined SIG representation
model i.e. "Constituencies" is a poor model why which to structure the DNSO
or ICANN.  As you Danny have pointed out in the past the PSO and ASO
have not such constituency's.  If such SIG's/Constituency's were a good
idea as structure element, than I dare say the the Catholic Domain Name
Holders group, the Buddhist Domain name holders Group and the Moslem's
global domain name holders group, would eventually seek entry as a
potential constituency for ICANN and demand recognition as well
as the ability to elect BoD members.  Is that a good idea?  I don't think so.

  Therefore Danny, I think your original position of the DNSO being structured
just as the ASO and PSO is a much better and simpler approach.  This
gives any DNSO members potential representation using the already
existing GA (General Assembly).

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> In response to the Restructuring Proposal that I submitted, Jefsey has posed
> two questions:
>
> The first question concerns categories of entitities that are not directly
> represented at the Board level, such as telcos, media, religious
> organizations, financial institutions, etc.   At issue is which groups are
> deemed major stakeholders in the ICANN process currently, and what
> "evolutionary" provisions have been made to accomodate emerging stakeholder
> groups.
>
> As an organization, we have committed to abiding by certain principles noted
> in the Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Department of Commerce...
> one such principle (representation) states in part:  "These mechanisms will
> promote the flexibility needed to adapt to changes in the composition of the
> Internet user community and their needs."
>
> Jefsey is correct in noting that one deficiency in my proposal is that the
> Director selection process is static rather than dynamic.  There is a manner
> by which this problem may be corrected.
>
> We are all aware that the composition of any given constituent group changes
> over the course of time as does the total number of members on its roster.
> ICANN has previously accepted the notion that certain threshold requirements
> must be met for any constituent entity that seeks recognition.  Carrying that
> logic forward, it may also be held that a constituent group must maintain a
> certain quantity of members lest it become disaccreditted and lose the right
> to elect representatives to the Board.
>
> I note that ISOC (as but one example) has decommissioned a number of its
> chapters (in that those groups have failed to maintain their numbers at a
> certain level).  Those decommissioned chapters do lose certain privileges.
> The same principle may be applied to ICANN constituencies that seek to have
> representation on the Board.   If a hypothetical threshold level of 50
> members was established as a bare minimum, then it is certainly possible that
> our current ISP constituency (among others) might not qualify as a group
> entitled to seat a Director.  The possibility of "vacancies" would  allow for
> other currently non-recognized organizations to petition for recognition.
>
> This "petition-for-recognition mechanism" creates a challenge process whereby
> emerging stakeholders groups may vie with established groups for
> representation on the Board.   Obviously, certain safeguards will need to be
> established.  In Accra, Alejandro Pisanty pointed to a problem in certain
> Latin American communities during election cycles -- uninformed voters were
> rounded up from the countryside and trucked to the voting box by political
> groups intent on victory at all costs.  We need to be able to feel
> comfortable that constituencies seeking Board level representation haven't
> resorted to practices which have the effect of "stuffing their membership
> roles" just to meet threshold criteria.
>
> Should a given constituent group lose a "challenge" and be replaced by
> another constituency, this will not terminate their involvement in the ICANN
> process (as they will continue to function and may still communicate with the
> Board by way of the Ombudsman that has been established as a liaison to
> organizations that seek to address the Board).
>
> I look forward to further discussion on how we may best structure a flexible
> mechanism that equitably allows emerging stakeholder groups to join ICANN and
> be accorded proper representation, and would like to thank Jefsey for raising
> this issue.
>
> I will respond to Jefsey's second comment in a subsequent post.
>
> --
> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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