----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 1:33
PM
Subject: RE: [registrars] Diversity &
the new Proposed Constituancy bylaws
Ken,
I am
for diversity. I wish we had more of it. More participation is
good.
I do
not think, though, that we can mandate or impose it.
I
assume you are not suggesting we provide an incentive of some kind for
registrars from certain geographical
regions to participate.
I
strongly oppose artificial constraints on who can be elected to our
constituency leadership.
I
for one do not want to be forced to vote for a person who I beleive
*does not* represent my
registrar's views when the person who I believe
better represents those views is ineligable
becuase someone else from the same region has already
been elected.
Especially when it is difficult enough to get people
to run for the executive committee at all.
Besides, as you point out below, we already have this
imposition at other levels at ICANN
to
insure that the internet community from around the globe are duly represented,
which, unfortunately,
raised its head even recently when it was pointed out
to me that if one qualified person
(Michael) was elected, it would be difficult for
another qualified person (Vint) to be elected
to
the ICANN board since they are both from the same region of the
planet.
I do
not believe that many issues effecting our constituency divide us
geographically,
which I believe is unlike ICANN that has more
geographical-based issues (ccTLDs, etc.)
I
believe issues our membership will be (and are) deciding naturally
separate us
more
along economic lines that geographical lines.
If
you want to artificially constrain our excom, why don't you suggest we have so
many small registrars
and
so many big registrars represented on the excom? This I believe would create
more balanced
representation on excom than having all big
registrars but just from different countries.
That
would not be diverse, now would it?
(Again, I oppose *any* artificial
constraints).
Plus, I believe we still have this thing called
"voting" in which every registrar has equal
opportunity
to
weigh in on issues no matter what their latitude and longitude
combination may be.
Paul
Ross's recent observations :
" A review of the Registrar
Constituency mailing list archive paints an equally dismal
picture. The
fact is, regardless of the issue and absent extenuating
circumstances,
voter turnout is very poor. More than three years ago around
this time of
the year you indicated on this mailing list that you had strong
concerns
about the level of participation in the constituency. It doesn't
appear
that the dynamic has substantially changed."
are well taken.
It would appear to me that we have an opportunity with this by law
revision to make a positive statement to all constituents
by including in the requirements for composition of the executive
committee as well as including in "guidelines" for task force
participants a
requirement for "global diversity" (as defined in the ICANN
by-laws). I have noted at the various registrar meeting many
competent parties representing registrars from all parts of the globe and
believe that imposition of this Diversity guideline will encourage
greater participation by these qualified parties.
Addition of this requirement & these task force participation
guidelines to the by-laws would result in the establishment of a
more solid foundation for increased future "global participation" by more
members of the constituency..
Over the next few years registrar issues are going to become much more
"global centric" (i.e. privacy just for starts) & it is essential
that we have
globally-balanced direction from our executive
committee.
ICANN has already seen fit to require this with respect
to constituency names council representation,
Don't we think that it is a good time to implement this Diversity policy
within our own constituency ??
best wishes
ken stubbs