RE: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies]

["Marsh, Miles (Gene)" <MarshM@diebold.com>]

Karl,

Bravo!  We have an opportunity to fully address the issues now.  Not only will a "patch" prove fruitless, but any subsequent attempt at positive change would be met with a great deal more skepticism and difficulty.

Gene... 

-----Original Message-----
From: Karl Auerbach
To: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
Cc: Milton Mueller; wg-review@dnso.org
Sent: 12/29/00 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies]


> ...I would hesitate to sign on to an agenda to radically alter the
> DNSO structure since that is almost certainly the death knell to the
> influence of the work product from this WG.

One has to realize that the DNSO is, as a policy engine, essentially
dead
today - largely the result of stasis caused by the existing constituency
structure.

Should this group come up with a mere patch - one that does not reach
the
fundamental problem - the DNSO will remain moribund and this group will
have laboured in vain.

This group could try to achieve something real - and yes the Names
Council
and Board could ignore it - but then again they may not.

So, to my mind, the only chance we have of not wasting our time is to
shoot for the stars.  If we aim for less, failure is a certainty.

We seem to have to rough proposals on the table regarding
constituencies:

  - Elimination of formal/official constituencies and replacement of
    that with a one-person-one-vote mechanism (my approach)

  - Creation of objective criteria for the recognition and continued
    existance of official constituencies (including those already in
    existance) - individuals and small businesses being two examples of
    constituencies that would probably quickly arise.

My own sense is that continuation of the status quo is a non-starter.

		--karl--