[ga] Evolution - GA
Thomas, thanks for posing some excellent questions. I urge
Council to respond. Let me add a personal reflection (not as NC, not as
BC) on the relationship NC/GA, and hence the role of the GA in policy
making.
Objective Establishing coherence in the
DNSO.
Assumptions (the world as it should be and
may have been envisaged in the current by-laws)
All relevant and significant stakeholders should have the
possibility of representation in a constituency.
The GA is the rallying point for all
constituencies.
Therefore a logical conclusion is that,
- The GA mail list and the constituency liaison list
should be one and the same.
- the GA chair and the NC chair should be one and the
same.
Why has this not happened?
The GA mail list became a public chat list of a public who
were either,
A. stakeholders that were or could be represented by the
constituencies
or B. others who felt they were not represented by the
constituencies (notably individual name holders who were not businesses or
non-commercial organisations).
Solution
If the groups in B are relevant and significant stakeholders,
get them to form a constituency and participate in the NC.
Problem - self-organisation and representation have proved
challenges for individual domain name holders. So, use the at-large structure to
provide this organisation and to elect its NC reps.
Then, get all constituencies via their NC reps to vote
for the DNSO chair, who simultaneously chairs the NC and GA. (I float this idea
safe in the knowledge it won't be me.) Thoughts?
Philip
|