RE: [ga] Components of a new DNSO structure

[Jean-Michel Becar <Jean-Michel.Becar@etsi.fr>]

Harald,

My perception of the actual constituency system is the following: each
constituency is working from its point of view (they defend their interets,
that's fair) but we don't have any structure to consolidate the different
views, so too many voices go to the NC... the idea could be to give to GA
the ability to build and to ensure consensus before to pass to the NC a
Working Group Paper or Recommendation. 

My view may be add a step in the process but could bring to the DNSO a way
for all constituencies to meet and to discuss. My experience of the ICANN
meetings gives to me the perception (but may be I'm wrong here it's just a
personnel feeling) of clubs (constituencies) working in their own corner,
behind the doors without talking to each other. So I believe that the GA
could be the ideal place for that and I would like to see a closer
collaboration between each of the constituencies through the GA.
This should be easy to put in place.

For example today I assume that the regsitar constituency is working on the
introdution of new gTLDS and they are working hard, but we don't know and we
don't have a clue of what is going on ....and this is one of the most
important subject of the today DNSO's mision.

Those are my personnel opinions for today and feel free to tell me if I'm
wrong.

Regards,

Jean-Michel Becar
Project Manager
www.etsi.org
tel: + 33 4 92 94 43 15
fax: +33 4 92 38 52 15
gm: +33 6 82 80 19 31



-----Original Message-----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:alvestrand@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 9:01 AM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: [ga] Components of a new DNSO structure


I do not know if it is possible to replace the constituency structure with 
something better.

But I suspect that a better structure would contain at least the following 
elements:

- A forum where any voice capable of expressing itself reasonably can be
   heard.
   The GA attempts to fulfil this function now; opinions vary on whether it
is
   a success at that.

- A principle that working groups should consist of all the people willing
and
   capable of giving competent input, PRESENT AS INDIVIDUALS.
   Working group reports should be given in the name of the working group
   chair(s), with lists of persons "supporting" or "opposing". NOT
   representing; "in MY honest opinion" support or opposition.

- Some kind of organization capable of accepting or rejecting the output of
   a working group, selected on a basis that people acknowledge as
reasonable.
   NOT an organization with the power to make detailed policy on their own.
   This is the place on the organization chart where the current NC sits.

It's possible that the constituencies have a place in determining the 
"reasonable" composition of the decision function; it's certain that the 
constituencies currently serve to activate many of the people we need to 
work in working groups.

But I believe that they do not serve an useful function if we attempt to 
position them as debate partners.

            Harald

--
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
--
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