Governance (Re: [nc-org] Version 3.0 of policy statement)

[Marc Schneiders <marc@schneiders.org>]

Thank you, Milton, for 3.0! In this you've included:

"The DNSO encourages applicants to propose governance 
structures that provide ORG registrants with the 
opportunity to directly participate in the selection 
of officers and/or policy-making council members."

This indeed addresses my concerns about influence of the actual
organizations and people who use ORG names. The word 'directly'
makes clear that this is not some vague participation that can easily 
be ignored or made ineffective. 

Thank you for this! 

Would it maybe be an idea to add a line in support of this direct
participation? Explaining why it is a good idea, apart from principles
of democracy, to let the registrants determine policies? Vid. to
preserve/enhance the special character of ORG. Or would this be
counterproductive?

Although I am certainly not unhappy with the present draft, it is
still not clear to me, why we cannot and should not propose *one*
concrete 'applicant'. The whole purpose of the bidding is lost on me.
Unless there are fears of an inside deal in some smokey back room, it
seems such a waste of many peoples' time and resources to have
multiple proposals. It looks so much like the way ICANN came into
being. Do we want this history to repeat itself? Will not those who
can wield money most easily 'get' ORG?

Why can we not suggest (either as an alternative or as a single
proposal) concrete outlines for the governance of ORG (and the rest
naturally) and a proces for the selection of initial board members for
new ORG, or even (but now I am surely too bold) add a list of names
and/or organizations that designate initial board members?

Please, forgive my floppy English.

[There are one or two other, smaller, matters I would like to bring up
again for possible inclusion in the text. I will try to do this later
today in separate mails.]

-- 
Marc@Schneiders.ORG