RE: [ga] Top Level Domain Association - NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:patrick@quad.net.au]
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 10:34 AM

> In summary, I do not agree that we should necessarily 
> eliminate the Names
> Council constituency structure, rolling it into the General 
> Assembly, but I do
> believe the ideal constituency structure is an entirely 
> "virtual" structure with
> every member being flagged as to their constituency.  This 
> would allow us to
> re-formulate the constituencies, quickly if needed.

I might point out that this was suggested before and is something that the
ICANN BoD is proven to be steadfastly against. Although, Karl Auerbach is
one of the original supporters of such a flexible constituency model and the
@large BoD members may favor it, I don't believe that the four BoD squatters
would continence such behaviour. Together with the carry-over interim BoD,
they have the veto capability.

Personally, I don't see how it can be implemented with the resources at
hand. The theory is nice, but can it fly? The KISS method would elect all NC
seats, from the GA, and relegate constituencies to the role of PACs, until
such time as we can figure out a way to do it better. I submit that such
activity will take a number of years to complete. We need to start looking
at this in tiered near-term,  mid-term, and long-term views, IMHO. Without
doing so, we run into conflict with what can be done now v. what we want to
do in the future.
--
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