Re: [ga] DNSO Constituency Structure

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

on 11/22/01 6:15 PM, Eric Dierker at eric@hi-tek.com wrote:

> Patrick, Jeff and Roeland,
> 
> This is dynamite stuff.  If we look at our pending and evolving best
> practices how
> can we move this into a productive and solid position concept?
> 
> Joanna and Bill what is the next step?
> 
> Sincerely,
> Eric


Eric,

The process relies on a proactive role being taken by one individual, which
Best Practices (BP) delegates to non-partisan GA Secretariat Office, whose
job it is to assist interested members in moving a Suggestion forward on a
step by step basis through a series of procedures, whereby the whole GA
ultimately arrives at a fully documented consensus position on an Issue.
While the GA does not currently have its own secretariat office, there is
nothing to stop you taking on this responsibility yourself with respect to
oversight of this particular Issue, the only condition being that you do not
hold a strong position on the Issue, since it will be your responsibility to
administer the process in a fair and even handed manner.

If you are comfortable to do that, then I suggest you review the published
Best Practices (BP) documentation, substituting yourself for "GA
Secretariat" (and other members may wish to do the same with respect to
different Suggestions and Issues). The URLs are in my sugnature file below.
Exactly what the Secretariat role entails in terms of practical steps is
explained in BP Part IV, but this is still undergoing final revisions, and
not yet published. In the meantime, I am sending you some additional notes
offlist to help you get started, and please feel free to contact myself or
Bill offlist should need anything further.

Regards,

Joanna

The URLs for Best Practices: DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA")
Part I: 
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II: 
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires installing the Adobe Acrobat
Reader, which is available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)



> 
> Jeff Williams wrote:
> 
>> Patrick and all Assembly members,
>> 
>> Patrick Corliss wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 00:43:05 -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 20:36:27 +1300, David Farrar wrote:
>>>>> A ccTLD sponsor does not have a sole focus of making a profit.  In
>>>>> fact for .nz the over-riding priority is to serve the local internet
>>>>> community.
>>> 
>>>> Then what should happen is, to hand those ccTLDs back to their
>>>> designated countries? What are you saying here.
>>> 
>>> Hi Roeland
>>> 
>>> I can't speak for New Zealand but I do have experience in Australia.  As you
>>> may know I am on the Board of auDA, the Australian country code.  Of course,
>>> I speak in my personal capacity and not on behalf of the Board.
>>> 
>>> As I see it, each ccTLD is like a mini-ICANN.  As it may not have any
>>> responsibility for IP addresses perhaps it is more appropriate to equate a
>>> ccTLD with the DNSO.  At least that's the way I see it.
>> 
>> Good point here Patrick.  Would it not than be reasonable that if
>> a group of the ccTLD's wish to band together in some fashion that
>> they would then be a defacto ccSO?
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Now the DNSO is made up of seven constituencies representing registrars,
>>> registries, businesses, trade marks etc.  Each ccTLD may be organised
>>> similarly (i.e. with some form of constituency structure).
>>> 
>>> In Australia, for example, auDA's membership is open to interested parties
>>> in three categories of membership - Supply, Demand and Representative
>>> Associations.  Representatives from each of these classes sit on the board
>>> of auDA for two year terms.
>>> 
>>> As provided in the Constitution, the auDA Board comprises:
>>> *    Three (3) persons elected by Supply Class Members;
>>> *    Three (3) persons elected by Demand Class Members;
>>> *    Three (3) persons elected by Representative Association Class Members;
>>> *    Two (2) persons elected by the Members voting together as a whole;
>>> 
>>> For details, see http://www.auda.org.au/about/board.html
>>> This composition makes it very hard for any one group to "capture" the
>>> Board.
>>> 
>>> You can see, perhaps, that David Farrar seems to be saying that a ccTLD
>>> is really neither "supply" or "demand" like a gTLD registry.  It should not,
>>> therefore, be lumped in with supply as Chuck Gomes seemed to suggest.
>> 
>> Perhaps Patrick.  But do not ccTLD managers/companies provide
>> a service to registrants as their primary function?  If yes, than isn't it
>> reasonable to assume that Chuck is quite right?  I think it is.
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This is why ccTLDs argue for consideration as a separate Supporting
>>> Organisation rather than a separate constituency within the DNSO.
>>> 
>>> I have tried to provide a better focus on the problem by asking members
>>> of the GA to consider the underlying supply-demand reality.
>>> 
>>> Best regards
>>> Patrick Corliss
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 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
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
> --
> 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