ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[wg-review]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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


Earlier statements of threshold questions can be summarized by this one. The
ultimate threshold question wrt constitiencies. .... keep them or lose them?

For all of the reasons that were touched upon in this thread, I think that
constituencies are a appendage that the DNSO is not yet mature enough to
grow.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl@CaveBear.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 2:31 PM
> To: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
> Cc: Milton Mueller; wg-review@dnso.org
> 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--
> 
> 


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>