RE: [wg-d] Working Group Membership

["Antony Van Couvering" <avc@interport.net>]

+
+>In the bylaws the term "member" is nowhere associated with the GA.
+>There are "members" of the NC; and there are "members" of
+>constituencies (in one place), but nowhere are "members" of the GA
+>mentioned.
+
+This is a good observation. It would be odd indeed to allow an
+organization or a company to be a member of a DNSO constituency but
+disqualify them for participation in the GA or a WG.
+
+    -- Bret

I don't think it's so odd.  Joe X may be the guy that Very Big Co. sends to
ICANN to keep an eye on things.  Joe X can participate in a WG as Joe X, but
not as the rep of Very Big Co.  Joe can still view things from the company
perspective, but he can't say, "My company is Very Big, and at Very Big we
are against this because we are Very Big."

That kind of behavior would belong in the constituency politics.  In the
working group, Joe would have to have reasons for his positions, or at least
be encouraged to do so.  Ideally, the working group would be disinterested,
and would try to find solutions rather than promote company policy.

That's one perspective where the distinction between companies and
individuals makes a difference.

Antony