[ga] Re: Reform proposal: A democratic DNSO

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

Danny,

I touched on this many moons ago. The principle value that the GA can and
should be bringing to the table is the informed recommendations that its
members can make. We also talked about this generally on Thursday. Claiming
to represent a Public Interest doesn't increase the legitimacy of the
assembly. This is one of the big areas that the current GA has gotten
interminably tied up in. In the GA, as with the IETF, its not about who you
represent, but the ideas that you bring to the table. The ideas that
eventually result in consensus based recommendations that can be taken
seriously. This is not about democracy - it never was.

-rwr

----- Original Message -----
From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
To: <ross@tucows.com>; <ploki_xyz@hotmail.com>; <james.love@cptech.org>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 10:31 AM
Subject: Reform proposal: A democratic DNSO


> Ross, you wrote:  "The GA is not a forum for debating. It is a forum for
open
> participation in the work of the DNSO."
>
> Sadly, I think you are missing the point... We are in the midst of a
debate
> regarding the "evolved" future of the GA within the DNSO.  As such, we
cannot
> point to past constructs and declare that they are determinative.
>
> Within the DNSO we have two collectivities, the members of special
interest
> groups (constituencies) and non-affiliated members (GA participants that
> represent the voice of the Public Interest).  Currently, no voting rights
are
> accorded to those that represent the Public Interest within the DNSO, only
> lobbyists for special interest groups may vote.  Why should I and my peers
> that are actively involved in the day-to-day ICANN issues have no voting
> rights within this policy-recommending organ?  There are certainly as many
of
> us in this organization as there are of you... why should we be treated as
> second-class participants?
>
> Our founding documents were predicated on a recognized need for "balance".
> An "evolved" DNSO should confer voting rights to all that participate in
this
> body and should strike a balance between special interest and public
> interest.  In my view, that would mean that the GA as a collectivity
should
> have as many votes as the aggregate of the special interests.
>
> An even better approach would be One-person/One-vote, a democratic
tradition
> that would serve us well.  Let me ask, what would be your objection to a
> reorganization based on democratic principles?  Is there any particular
> reason why the membership of the GA should not be given voting rights?
What
> claim do you have to a superior status?

--
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