<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] A new model
Michael,
Thank you for your comments and clarification. I can well appreciate your
argument that the "there is a danger when grossly unrepresentative
constituencies attempt to micromanage or impose their viewpoints without
understanding the basics." For several years now, the General Assembly has
served as a vehicle to facilitate such understanding, but as a tool it
remains largely unused by most Names Council members that have collectively
decided to forego the benefits of cross-constituency debate, discourse and
edification.
I had occasion last night to reflect upon Rick Wesson's comments regarding
the failure of the constituency system. Ultimately a constituency model can
only work if there is a facile add/delete/modify mechanism associated with
it. Some constituencies are so small and inactive that they rightfully
should be retired. The NCDNHC, for example, has only two dozen paying member
organizations, is more than $30,000 in debt to the DNSO and hasn't updated
its website in more than half a year; list discussion is virtually
non-existent. The ISPs haven't updated their own site in more than a year
and resist the prospect of additional task forces because they have no
members that will come forward to participate in any new TFs; they also have
no discussion list. The BC hides their lack of member participation behind
the artifice of a non-archived list, and the IPC didn't even notice that its
own archives have been down for more than two and a half months (and no more
than a half dozen members ever discuss anything on that list anyway).
As it stands, we have no manner by which we can "delete" these constituencies
nor hold them accountable to certain minimum standards to justify their
continued involvement. Neither do we have criteria in place to allow for the
establishment of provisional constituencies. Complicating matters is the
registry/registrar position to refuse to approve ICANN funding for DNSO
Secretariat services which creates a severe financial burden for others that
seek to enter into the fold. Rick happens to be right. The constituency
model hasn't worked, and it's not going to work.
The ERC proposal only makes a bad situation worse by perpetuating this
seriously flawed model, and by continuing to deny representation and voting
rights to the single largest, most involved, knowledgeable and active
constituency in the ICANN process -- the membership of the General Assembly.
The minutes of your Amsterdam meeting make it clear that the registries seek
to form a Contracting Parties Supporting Organization so that the views of
your respective members can flow unfiltered to the Board without the prospect
of being mangled/filtered by the current DNSO process. There is merit in
that proposal. This would force the remaining constituencies and the
non-constituency members of the GA to re-organize into a Registrants
Supporting Organization which might then allow for the establishment of new
criteria to guage the actual viability of those that seek to join the new SO.
What is the current view of the registrars regarding the desirability of
forming such a contracting parties SO? If the registrars are willing to
adopt this proposal, it might bode well for ICANN as a whole.
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|