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

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@hi-tek.com>]

As long as we all agree these are just positions to be discussed, that it is a
developing concept. Then I agree with this line of logic completely.

I am having trouble with combining anything in the existing structure.  What I
believe is that for now if we just get every existing (and developing as in the
IDNH Const.) up and running then we can adapt from there.  Its hard to find
leaks until you fill the pipes with water.

The GA is making great strides toward being a truly functional body and the IDNH
is on the Horizon, and whether I like the study delay or not, there is progress
in the @large.

No one has convinced me that the structure is bad, it is just that we have been
having a hard time implimenting it.

Sincerely,

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> > 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

--
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