RE: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

At 04:39 PM 8/30/00 +0200, Jean-Michel Becar wrote:

>[snip]
>If my memory is not too bad, the constituency model was hardly discussed
>during the DNSO creation process - and this was the major issue. And today
>how to reach consensus on the decrease of the number of constituencies? 
>[snip]


	While all of the major dnso proposals back in early 1999 incorporated some
form of "constituency" system, they varied sharply in their understanding
of what the word "constituency" would mean.   The dnso.org proposal
contemplated six constituencies much like the ones we have now.   But the
competing Paris draft proposed a different approach:

> Members of the General Assembly shall self-organize into
> diverse constituencies. No member shall be a member of more
> than one constituency. The initial constituencies shall be
> recognized by the ICANN Board based on the following
> criteria:
> 1.Constituencies other than the constituency representing
> registries, shall represent at least 5% of the members of
> the General Assembly. 
> 2.Constituencies shall be open to membership without
> regard to geographic location. 
> 3.Constituencies shall adopt open and transparent
>  processes that comply with these Rules and the ICANN
>  Bylaws. 
>  4.Constituencies shall not be formed or recognized insofar
>  as they are based on geographic location, religious
>  affiliation, governmental affiliation, or membership in any
>   particular corporation or organization. 
>   b. Each recognized constituency shall select three (3) members
>   to sit on the Names Council . . . .

	The proposal incorporated a sharply different understanding of what a
"constituency" was, because the idea was that there would not have to be an
official list of interest groups that would get recognition and NC seats --
rather, any group of folks representing 5% of the ga could declare itself a
"constituency" and (assuming it satisfied the other criteria) get
recognized.  See (thank you, Ellen, for this inestimable historical
resource) <http://www.domainhandbook.com/comp-dnso.html>.  It seems to me
that the Paris draft approach also has flaws, and I think that the
constituency system as it exists today may be politically impregnable.  But
I think Harald's criticisms are *exactly* on the mark, and it may be worth
remembering past proposals in thinking what to do about them.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg@msen.com
--
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