[ga] Re: Channels to create an IC

["babybows.com" <webmaster@babybows.com>]

My personal view...

Bill Lovell has raised the issue of the role of the Names Council with
regard to the creation of an Individuals' Constituency.

Subsequent to the report of the Names Council DNSO Review Task Force, the
Names Council put forth a Business Plan (20 Feb) which stated (under the
heading "Strategies"), "Establish an interim committee to propose terms of
reference for an NC task force or other group to implement the following:
5.4 Individuals Constituency. Review the need, uniqueness, potential
contribution and representiveness of an individual domain name holder's
constituency."

The last Names Council teleconference bore witness to the fact that none of
the Names Council "Interim Committees" have yet established any "terms of
reference" for any new project cited in the Business Plan - they are
"hoping" to get this work accomplished by Stockholm.

Three months to pose the most basic "terms of reference"... This is yet
another example of the abject failure of the constituency structure model.
That one set of constituencies can vote to threaten the voting rights of
other constituencies is still another example of the folly of this
structure.

I remind you that the majority of the members of the Review Working Group
called for the abolition of this constituency structure (supporting the
initiative of Director Karl Auerbach to roll the constituencies back into
the GA on a one-man-one-vote basis).

It's time to move forward on the basis of conclusions already reached.
Creating new constituencies does not solve our problems (especially if they
can't afford to vote).  The Board has expressed its willingness to consider
structural changes in the DNSO (resolution 01.28).  It is time to push the
Names Council to get on with its job until such time as it is dissolved and
replaced by a structure that better guarantees full representation.

The only people that I have seen pushing for an Individuals' Constituency
are the few members of the idno that will occasionally strike up a
conversation on their own list.  When Joop fails to post on this topic on
the GA list, no one else posts on this topic.  Where is the true measure of
support?  The idno Chair has not even come forward to support the motion
recently put forth, and frankly has not even participated on the idno list
since January.

An effort has been made to discourage bringing up the past history of the
idno.  This history is an issue that warrants discussion.

Make no mistake about it, if an Individuals' Constituency is created, the
idno will be the first organization in line seeking to represent
individuals.  If they can't get sufficiently organized to present their own
petition, and have it accepted by the Board, then why should I, or any of
you, want them representing us?  The channels are available to them under
the Bylaws to put forward their own petition.  Let them do so.  No one is
stopping them.  Perhaps at some point they will actually create a new
petition for presentation, although I have seen no effort on their own list
to do this.  I don't see why the GA should support their very transparent
ploy.

This is not about individuals having a voice, this effort is directed at
getting idno members seats on the Names Council.   Their website already
indicates who those NC members will be:  Joop Teernstra, Dinesh Nair, Dennis
Schaefer.

Joop's motion will be voted on this coming week.  He and I will jointly
agree on appropriate language for the ballot question as we are at odds on
this issue.  While I do not support his motion, the General Assembly will
make the decision, and I will put forward the position of the GA to the
Board.





--
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