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

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

No. You assume that the budget should control how the constituency is put
together? What do you have then? Purchased power and votes. I'm not assuming
you mean to infer that. But the first problem is to determine what is the
RIGHT thing to do, then determine how it will be paid for not the reverse.

That isn't acceptable IMO.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>
To: "'J J Teernstra'" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>; <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2000 9:05 AM
Subject: RE: [wg-review] [constituencies] A proposal for reform


>
> Joop:
>
> Under your scenario, would the Name Holders pay 50% of the ICANN Budget?
>
> Petyer de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of J J Teernstra
> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 8:39 PM
> To: wg-review@dnso.org
> 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
>