[ga] Chair Election

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

The quality of the four nominated persons for Chair and co-Chair, shows 
that this GA is becoming a mature body.
The future of the DNSO and the GA has been discussed at length in the 
WG-Review allowing each candidate to give his own position.
To the benefit of the GA I would like to ask the four of them to comment 
the following positions:


1. the DNSO should be made of the GA with freely created GA/SIGs ranging 
form existing constituencies to Working Groups and Centers of Interests. It 
elects its own Chairs.

2. each SIGs has its own rules and Charter. SIGs are registered by 
Secretariat and provided with a DNSO specialized mailing list and a link on 
the DNSO welcome page.

3. SIGs are acknowledged by the GA on a regular basis as representative of 
real interests/results. No being acknowledged does not dissolve an SIG (it 
may be a new, a side interest, etc... SIG).

4. Members of the DNSO/GA are supposed to possess the technical/political 
knowledge of a Domain Name owner.

5. A Mailing List gathers *one* representative per SIG to help coordinating 
the SIGs.  That mailing list could eventually replace/complete the NC.

6. The transition could be implemented simply in welcoming specialized 
Centers of Interests (providing them with an ML and a link) and in creating 
an ML for their Chairs, the Chairs of the Constituencies and the Chair of 
the NC. And in reviewing the result.

7. The WG-Review would become one of these SIG and would stay on a 
permanent basis as some QA center for the DNSO.

8. as a Support Organization, the DNSO missions is to uncover consensus on 
"netwide" concerns (even if they are only the list of the various 
positions) providing the BoD with advise on the "reality", the "possible" 
and the "advisable". It is the role of the @large to vote on positions and 
to allow stakeholders on the "desirable" and on the "demanded". In a 
nutshell netwide, consensus and consulting belong to the DNSO while 
stakeholders interests, votes and requests belong to the @large.

9. The DNS is a public domain program. Each machine using it needs a unique 
root. It is advisable that every machine on the network uses the same 
unique root. To reach this all the existing roots should be accepted as 
sub-sets of a unique common root and be equally supported as per the iCANN 
Charter and bylaws.

10. The iCANN should disengage from the USG control in becoming an 
international association of the national and market Internet communities. 
Its charter is to ordinarily serve these communities and exceptionally to 
represent them on a consensual and formally defined delegation.

I thank the four candidates for their comments.

Jefsey









--
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