RE: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Joanna Lane [mailto:jo-uk@rcn.com]
|> Sent: Sunday, 25 March 2001 3:56 PM
|> To: dassa@dhs.org; Ga
|> Subject: RE: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN
|>
|>
|> It appears to me the DNSO has not defined
|> what "representation" actually is and how it is to be seen as valid.
|>
|> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
|>
|> Hello Dassa,
|> This sounds to me like you want DNSO to interfere with internal procedures
|> at companies like AT & T , to ensure their accountability to their employees
|> and customers and commonality of representation within DNSO, by some form of
|> formalized structure.  I hope not. Representatives, whether from groups of
|> big business, associations, small business, public policy groups,
|> individuals etc., can only be validated by the interest they take in DNSO,
|> and not by the affairs of other corporations that are of no concern to
|> ICANN. Yet again, the solution can be found in reforming the existing
|> constituency structure to include proper representation for individuals and
|> small business, amongst other groups.

No, I do not advocate interfering with any organisation.  However, where such
representation is given weight by the DNSO, what that representation actually is
does need to be clearly understood.  To give representives from organisations
additional weight in any discussions requires their actual representation to be
validated.  There is often reference made to such representation as providing
high numbers of participation.  I contend that unless the representation is
clearly understood we can not assume such participation.

|> The issue here is not about what is, or what is not, valid representation,
|> but it is about DNSO's unrealistic expectations that it could function under
|> the existing structure. If a representative turns up and participates, I
|> suggest they are valid, but for whatever reason, DNSO has imposed artificial
|> limitations on the choices available for representation. If an interested
|> person is an employee of AT & T or a customer of DHS, and does not support
|> the policies that Marilyn or your good self are advocating, albeit in good
|> faith, that person has three choices. Ignore you, oust you from your role,
|> or find another representative outside of AT & T or DHS. Defining
|> representation does not assist a person in finding a representative that
|> does not exist or is not affordable.

True, individuals may participate in any way they deem fit.  One of the issues I
am exploring here is how much value is associated with such representatives
within the DNSO.  Can we truly say there are so many participants in the process
when we do not have a clear understanding of the procedures representatives
employ within their member structures to ensure participation and to be truly
representative of their members.  To my mind, assigning a proxy vote does not
imply participation.

|> DNSO should not be concerned with the quality of any particular
|> representative, in terms of how much emphasis they may or may not place on
|> advocating policies that are in the best interests of their employees and
|> customers. That would be an internal matter for Marilyn and your good self
|> to deal with as you each see fit and I have no doubt that both of you do the
|> best you can in the circumstances, in your own ways. It is the sheer volume
|> of employees and customers represented by large corporations, over whom DNSO
|> can have no quality control, that is of most concern. The remedy is simple.
|> Provide a completely separate and affordable option for those people to be
|> represented within DNSO, and on an equal footing. I would add only that it
|> is a disgrace that DNSO has not addressed this issue to date.

I tend to feel representatives of larger groups are given too much weight and
that they should be considered on a par with individuals.  For the DNSO to place
higher value on such representation without clearly defining the reasoning is of
concern to me.  To me, the DNSO should be advocating higher direct participation
and enabling individuals to have an equal say.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

--
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