RE: [ga] About GA membership again......

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto.gaetano@voila.fr>]

Joop wrote:
>
>Yes you forgot something. The GA of the DNSO is composed of ALL 
individuals
>(organized or dis-organized) that have an interest or a stake in the 
DNS.
>
>The "DNSO for organizations" is represented by the Names Council.  The 
GA
>is for those who feel that they should be represented on the NC.


I agree with Joop.
What is the need for a GA, if the members of it will only be 
organizations that participate already to the DNSO via the constituency/
ies they belong to?
The GA's added value is precisely the individuals (and, to a certain 
extent, also the organizations) that are not represented in the 
constituency system - and therefore not represented in the Name Council.


>If you send them away, the capture of the DNSO is sealed and the door 
is
>shut. 
>Neat.
>

I would not speak of "capture" because the interests represented by the 
constituencies are wide and diverse, and I do not see an obvious 
possibility of "capture" by a small subset of them.
What I see, though, is the real possibility of excluding a large part of
 stakeholders from the process.


>The ICANN "at- large" membership , ahhh , now that is something else
>altogether.
>

Joop identifies a point that should be discussed, IMHO.
What will be the relationship btw. GA and @large?
What will be the composition of the @large, and is there an overlap with
 the GA? What part of the @large-Members will be interested in 
participating in the DNSO/GA?

Regards
Roberto
--
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