Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Reformulation Questions

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

At 08:08 AM 12/29/00, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
>It looks like we have at least two proposals:

None of the positions are yet detailed enough to qualify as proposals, and 
it appears there are at least nine positions, but this is a good jumping 
off point for discussing this question

>1) that the "official" constituency structure be abandoned, and open 
>constituencies replace them;

This goes directly to issues of representation in the NC, and therefore the 
ICANN board - without a specific mechanism for that representation, or a 
call to abandon the concept of the NC (and replacing it with x), it's a 
position that might be held by any number of people who actually disagree 
on implementation. This needs clarification, it would seem:

No votes by constituencies, election by GA - 1
Individual domain name holders get one vote each - 1
Don't know - 1
Letting things resolve as they may without locked in constituencies/Free 
Choice - 2
the current review process should be used to reformulate the constituencies - 1

>2) that the current constituency structure be liberalized to allow any
>constituency to join the DNSO based on a list of objective criteria of
>representation;

Liberalized is perhaps a loaded word, there - I would suggest 
modified.  I'm not sure, in any event, how the structure can be 
liberalized, though certainly the process for constituency creation can be 
opened up.

In addition to this one,  the following positions have been recorded in the 
informal poll:

3. That the current structure be changed by combining provider groups. (no 
support - 0 votes)
4. That the current structure be changed by combining user groups. (3 votes)
5. That the current structure be changed by a combination of 3 and 4 (4 votes)

These positions could use some clarification, at least for me, in terms of 
which specific constituencies might be combined.

6. That the current structure be changed by adding an individuals' 
constituency. (motion made and seconded in the list)
7. That the current structure be changed by adding a "chartered tld" 
constituency. (motion made and seconded in the list)
8. That the current structure be changed by doing both 6 and 7.

This is a slight overstatement - the motions were made to develop 
sub-working groups to discuss them, but I'm assuming that the intent is to 
create them.

9. The current structure should not be changed. (3 votes)

>2a) if the constituency structure is liberalized, criteria
>should be established to determine the appropriate number of seats on the NC
>for each constituency.

I believe this is actually a separate question, and applies to several of 
the positions above.


Regards,
Greg

sidna@feedwriter.com