Re: [wg-review] We are in the starting line......

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

At 05:37 PM 12/27/00, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>Commenting on this:
>
>On 07:07 27/12/00, Kent Crispin said:
>>None of the basic dynamics that led to
>>the current structure have changed all that much.
>
>Kent seems to be unfortunately right.

Actually, there is two HUGE glaring changes that have happened since then. 
The first is the election of directors by atlarge, and a membership in 
atlarge that dwarfs the sum of all of the active participants in all the 
SOs. This is a big change and it has to change the dynamics of the system, 
one way or another.

The second huge change came out of MDR, and I'm amazed that no one seems to 
have noticed it. With the approval for negotiations on .name - a tld 
chartered for individuals - ICANN is specifically creating a class 
of  currently disenfranchised stakeholders. You think refusing to 
acknowledge a constituency for them will fly in the public political arena? 
If so, I have a really nice bridge to sell you (routers not included).

>The DNSO people had to fight a lot to get the hope of sharing one seat on 
>three and the @large would be given "for free" 9 seats?

Huh?

>The result is "let's quickly report a statu-quo to the BoD before the new 
>DoC team is in place

I suspect the deadline has more to do with reporting to the ICANN board in 
Melbourne.

>In a nutshell, no need for us to fight for 3 BoD seats, when we have 12 
>available.

*boggle*

>Now within the DNSO

Within ICANN, the DNSO is one of the three SOs

>there are three netwide Support Organizations and we are discussing the 
>one concerned by
>domain name issues.


>Normal procedure should be that the DNSO welcomes new concepts, filter 
>them, help them to be better defined and accepted.

I see that as the role of the GA within the DNSO, then referring to the NC 
for constituency evaluation

>Then DNSO should relate with the different user groups (@large)

Atlarge, no matter how much I'd like to see it composed of fluid interest 
groups, is currently an amorphous mass for the most part. And it's issues 
aren't the issues of the DNSO.

>  Another example: the DNSO/BC took sides in the @large election and 
> advised who to vote for.

As a constituency, or as individual members?

Regards,
Greg