Re: [ifwp] Re: Monterrey Report

[Michael Sondow <msondow@iciiu.org>]

cgomes@internic.net a écrit:

> If the Names Council is primarily a facilitator of the
> consensus building process within the DNSO, then these
> concerns may not be nearly as critical.  There is a big
> difference between a Names Council that has policy making
> power and one that just has the responsibility of
> coordinating a consensus building process within the total
> DNSO.

This question was brought up in Monterrey. I and others argued for the
latter function of the Names Council, and suggested that in that case
each constituency would need only a single representative on it, since
that person would simply be conveying the decisions of the
constituency's members. Unfortunately, to my way of thinking, this
suggestion did not prevail, a majority (apparently) feeling that the
Names Council would require a certain degree of autonomy in order to
operate effectively.

I felt, and still feel, that autonomous decision-making by the Names
Council is a dangerous precedent to establish in the DNSO's by-laws and
to implement by disproportionate seating of constituencies'
representatives. This question is, I hope, still open to discussion.