Re: [ga] Evolution - GA

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

Phillip and all assembly members,

Philip Sheppard wrote:

>    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 constituency model as Karl has rightly stated along with a number
of
other stakeholders is flawed and panders to special interests.  Most if
not
all of the DNSO Constituencies set up unreasonable barriers for
stakeholders
to become constituency members that do not necessarily apply to their
status if any...

>
> 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.

  Bad idea to have the NC and the GA chairs as one in the same.  The GA
is a place where those that are not represented in any existing
constituency
can participate and a stakeholder in DNSO related issues and policy
making.

>
>
> 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).

  Exactly right.  And as it should remain...

>
>
> 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.

  Not a good idea here either really.  The ALSC final report was soundly

rejected as a result of this very idea.  The AT-Large is for
stakeholders/users
and no DOmain Name holders, although Domain Name holders can also
be stakeholders/users and should therefor be able to be part of any
At-Large
organization.  However as the ICANN BOD did away with the At-Large
those stakeholders cannot not now be represented.  Hence another reason
your suggestion, although well meaning, is not expectable or viable.

>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>

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