Re: [wg-d] NC Elections. Was: ga] DNSO General Assembly - Revised Agenda

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 08:44 PM 12/08/1999 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:

>
>The NC is to facilitate finding consensus in the *DNSO*, not the GA.  
>The constituencies are part of the DNSO.  A WG of the GA can propose 
>something, and the NC can charter a drafting committee from the 
>constituencies to rewrite it.  
>
If the DNSO is really the constituencies and excludes whatever additional
stakeholder input comes from the GA, then the process of adding
self-organizing constituencies of the unrepresented stakeholders becomes
that much more critical.
In fact, the entire representativeness if the DNSO would depend on it.
Yet, the decisions that add such constituencies, just as the decisions that
created the existing ones, are taken by an unelected Board. 
This makes the DNSO an organ of the Board, not a supporting organization.

>[...]
>
>> > The role of this WG is to develop procedures within the bylaws, not to
try
>> > to change them or change their meaning.
>> 
>> The WG's are free to interpret the by-laws and to petition ICANN's
>> board to make adjustments as necessary.
>
>As are the constituencies.  The constituencies collectively represent 
>a very large cross-section of the Internet community -- *very* much 
>more than the GA's 130 members represent.
>
A very bald statement. The constituencies as I see them now represent
certain self-interested lobbies. They are closed to individuals and are
barely *known* to the "Internet community".
How many businesses have heard of the "business constituency" , let alone
elected their representatives?
At least the GA is open to the disenfranchised. It is also open to any
individual active in any of the of the constituencies.
How can it be less representative?


--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  , bootstrap  of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org