Re: [nc-str] Where should policy making happen?

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Wed, 2 Jan 2002 15:17:51 +0100, "Philip Sheppard"
<philip.sheppard@aim.be> wrote:

>Lets us take this further and propose the following structure consistent with option 4:

Thanks Philip - This articulates the option quite well.  It now gives
me something solid to take back to the GA and also to those involved
in organising an individual domain name holders constituency.  I'll do
that tonight.

DPF

>"Different ALSO (direct elections to board, but policy directed via the DNSO), otherwise no change DNSO. Result: Board gets consistent advise, DNSO role in policy strengthened, GA reverts to its intended role as a unifying assembly."
>
>1. ALSO is formed and directly elects 5/6/9 Board members (as ALSC proposal but lets not argue about the number here)
>2. ALSO also elects 10/12 member Administrative Council (as ALSC proposal but with an administrative role to organise the SO and outreach downwards on policy)
>3. ALSO Administrative Council selects 3 members (or the 3 top geographically diverse of the directly-elected council election list) appointed to Names Council to input on policy matters. The 3 AL Names Council reps get full voting rights on policy issues on the NC (but do not vote at the annual election for DNSO Board members).
>4. The individuals petitioning for an individual domain name holders constituency within the DNSO are encouraged to participate in the ALSO and become AL Administrative Council members and reps to the NC.
>5. The GA reverts to its intended role of uniting all DNSO constituencies (and expands to include at least the AL Administrative Council and NC reps).
>
>Comments please on this practical scenario based on Dave's proposal above.
>
>Philip

--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527