RE: [ga] Re: Roeland's Motion

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Hello Bret,

How many times or how long, do we have to continue trying something that is
patently not working. At some time, one has to admit to reality.After two
years of trying to fix this, we have still have the status quo. The
confidence behind an internal repair has long sice eroded and partial
repairs are often worse than no repairs. 

It is time to either fix it or junk it. I kindly refer you to the WG-Review
archives. The general feeling there was that no one knows how to define a
constituency. To a large extant, the requirements for a constituency are
market-driven and the ICANN doesn't even know how to do that, let alone have
the mechanisms in place. Yes at that time, MHSC used that factiod to make
the argument for abolishing constituencies altogether. MHSC still feels that
way, but bows to the political reality that the extant constituencies will
successfully resist organizational death. That same factoid has been also
used to argue against creating more constituencies. Thus, freezing the
current situation in amber ... forever, unless we do something different.
Bicamerality routes around the impasse and eliminates the Single Point Of
Failure (SPOF), that is the Names Council. The Names Council can continue to
exclusively serve its constituent vested interests, as they do now, and the
GA can continue to represent all domain name registrants, from all root
zones, inclusively. I can't see any reason for one group to have any more
"say" than the other.

In US Federal terms, the analogy is that the NC is like the Senate and the
GA is like the House of Representitives. All have a vested interest in DNS
policies, simply by being registrants. Non-registrants are already supposed
to be a part of the AtLarge (ALSO), at ICANN BoD level. Both Hamilton and
Jefferson may prevail equally.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:baf@fausett.com]
|> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 12:12 PM
|> To: [ga]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Roeland's Motion
|> 
|> 
|> DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
|> > I have re-worded Roeland's motion to better reflect what 
|> may be an emerging
|> > GA consensus view.  Your comments are needed.
|> 
|> Danny, Roeland's motion circulated, for the first time, 
|> yesterday. It's
|> inconceivable to me that there has been sufficient time and 
|> comment to
|> pronounce it an emerging GA consensus view. For my part, I 
|> think we need
|> great reform in the current DNSO structure to ensure that 
|> all persons and
|> companies have a place within the constituency structure, 
|> ensuring that
|> their voices are heard and their interests served, but I am 
|> not convinced
|> that making the General Assembly an equal chamber is the 
|> right answer.
|> 
|> The better solution, in my opinion, is to add constituencies 
|> as necessary to
|> represent the entire range of interests in the DNS and allow 
|> the GA to serve
|> the function for which it was designed: a place for 
|> cross-constituency
|> dialogue and consensus building.
|> 
|>       -- Bret
|> 
|> --
|> 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