Re: [wg-review] [constituencies] A proposal for reform

["Chris McElroy" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

It's definitely a start in the right direction..

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "J J Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
To: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 4:38 PM
Subject: [wg-review] [constituencies] A proposal for reform


> Dear WG-members,
>
> I have expressed my agreement with Karl about the need for fluidity in the
> constituency structure of the DNSO.
> To achieve this, the Board needs to agree on a quick procedure to approve
> new DNSO constituencies and to rebalance the NC voting power each time
when
> a new constituency would be recognized as a real stakeholder constituency.
> On the other hand, I do not see it as realistic that existing power blocks
> dismantle themselves to accommodate this wish , especially not the united
> lobby of IP interests.
>
> What I do propose is (and where hopefully  some consensus can form), is
> to make a start with balancing voting power on the NC.
>
> The interests of Name Holders need roughly to be balanced with those of
the
> registration industry,(ISPs, ccTLDs, TLD registries and SLD registrars
plus
> the IP interests)--currently 15 votes.
> The Business constituency (small and big Biz), the NCDNHC and the
Individual
> DN Holders, could and should have an equal number of votes.
>
> I propose that the current representation of the ISP's, TLD registries,
> Registrars and IP lobby together, be reduced to 10 seats.
> That Three Name Holder Constituencies (possibly united into a single
> constituency) be also given 10 seats on the NC.
>
> The ccTLD's could be given a separate status,one that would not tip the
> registry-industry vs. DN holder balance in the DNSO, but give them instead
a
> separate representation on the Board, reflecting ICANN's need for their
> co-operation.
>
> Is this a realistic compromise between completely abandoning the
> constituency structure and ending the frustration of always being outvoted
> due to lack of representation?
>
> It's well past midnight here, sooo.....
>
> Cheers and Happy New Year to you all. May 2001 bring us the solution for a
> better balanced DNSO.
>
>
>
> --Joop
>