Re: [ga] DNSO Constituency Structure

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

Comments in sequence;

You and Bill rock.

Joanna Lane wrote:

> 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.
>

So at first I say, "shouldn't this be the Chair or Alt Chair job".  But
then I see
wisdom.  For myriad of reasons this should be a separate function.
(Chief Protocol Officer, Parliamentarian, even sometimes Sergeant at
Arms,
and quite often secretary)  I am getting it.

Hey maybe I could do this job because I always seem to hold a weak
position as opposed to a strong one ;-}.  Butt I fail in the fair and
even
handed gig :-(

>
> 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.

Obsessive compulsive, I am not at any stretch. In fact I am so much on
the other
end of the spectrum that you can call me obsessive impulsive.  But I am
learning and hope that I can work with others to make this work.  Thank
you
for a fine glimpse into the great prospects ahead.

I was rude and put a high priority on this as we will need to help to
get this done.

And I want others to pay attention to the reality of the future and the
great hope
that this experiment will work.

sincerely.
Eric

>
> 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-full@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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