ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[wg-review]


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

Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Rough Proposal C - eliminate NC, keepconstituencies


Dear Eric,
I am afraid these guies here are past reasonable considerations like yours.
Reasonable international business practicians would probably build a smoothly
working ICANN in a couple of hours....
The people just confuse

DNSO                   @large
general interest      stakeholder interest
consensus             compromise
proposition             election
veto                       vote
expertise                representation
center of interests   constituency
Consilium               Parliament
NICs                      ccTLDs
domain names        TM
administrators         politicians
duties                     rights
services                  disputes
few competences    millions of users

because a guy named Dennis Jennings trapped them into a wrong
mix up of DNSO and @large and that now the BoD fed-up in seeing them
totally unproductive tries to put some order in the DNSO and in resetting
the @large. Problem; hard fought seats at the totally artificial NC should be
lost. The first solution for having people like you, me and common people
talking together is to drop the artificial mechanic of the NC and its
seats, limited representation etc....

1. one GA open to all who want to share and may survive the individuals
     in here.
2. ad hoc working groups proposed by centers of interests, associations
     structures, club, whatever you want
3. concertation at WG Chair level (one WG one vote) to check that the
     proposed documents are professional and non conflicting.
4. nomination and election to the BoD by the GA after nomination
     approval by the Chair Concilium (to avoid internal disputes and permit
     NICs to get one out 3 sites as it should be the case in the ASO and
     PSO, due to special duties and responsibilities).

Jefsey

NB. Roberts rules are something good to adapt:
        1. to Internet
        2. to hundreds of national cultures.

PS. I chair Digital Continuity an association againts the Digital Divide.
        I would add that to participate into any internet governance team
        it should be necessary to be bilingual and that any decision should
        show how it fights the Digital Divide. Otherwise we are going to end
        up with a split between IBM/ATT/SAIC people and the rest of the
        world which will do no got to any one. Yesterday a proposition was
        actually to pay the BoD seats in using the money hey collect from
        us. I certainly see the logic, but I do not belong to that culture.







On 23:06 03/01/01, ERIC@HI-TEK.COM said:
>I have finally found a "thread" which I believe follows the mandate of the
>working group.
>
>I am business director of Hi-Tek Multimedia.  We own, administer, market and
>develop Second Level Domain names in .net, .org, .com, .tv, .ws and soon 
>.la and
>are working on a few more ccTLD's. We are also affiliate or partners with
>several registries. We are an ISP and Network Solutions provider.  We also 
>work
>in secure e-commerce development. One of our companies is an IPO dotcom 
>corp. I
>work extensively in trademarks and copyrights. So as far as transparency goes
>anyone can pick a constituency to which I belong.
>
>ICANN was established as a corporation, corporations historically have voting
>blocks which are determined by the ownership of differing types of 
>stock.  Many
>of the problems faced by ICANN would be eliminated by adopting/adapting the
>model from which it was formed.
>As a furtherance of this concept, I believe that Robert's Rules of Order 
>can be
>easily adapted to fit this type of WG protocol.
>Sincerely
>
>Roeland Meyer wrote:
>
> > I just got back in town last night so this is a little delayed.
> >
> > I think that Milton has probably the most salient point here, than all the
> > others combined.
> >
> > We've all been witness to various capture algorithms, wrt ICANN/DNSO. IMHO,
> > this is the main reason we are having this WG now. The ICANN/DNSO gets
> > captured by a faction and all the disenfranchised factions stop wanting to
> > play. In business and engineering, one starts off with some sort of problem
> > description, followed a clear path to a requirements definition. Only then,
> > does one consider implementation details. We have all seen a few years 
> worth
> > of wasted effort because we HAVEN'T followed that process.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu]
> > > Sent: Monday, January 01, 2001 4:16 PM
> > > To: sidna@feedwriter.com
> > > Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> > > Subject: Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Rough Proposal C -
> > > eliminate NC, keepconstituencies
> > >
> > >
> > > I'll make the same response to you, Greg, that I just made to
> > > Joop. You are putting forward solutions before documenting
> > > problems convincingly. It will be very easy for the people
> > > who control NC and the Board to ignore recommendations that
> > > they don't like. It will be harder for them to ignore a
> > > detailed bill of particulars that shows how and why the DNSO
> > > is dysfunctional. We can append to that bill of particulars a
> > > series of ideas about how to fix it, but that could be an
> > > open-ended list of the most popular ideas, leaving details to
> > > a future WG.
> > >
> > > >>> Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com> 12/31/00 13:26 PM >>>
> > > Rough Proposal C - Eliminate the names council and keep the
> > > concept of
> > > "official" constituencies.
> > >
> > > This is a rough proposal that takes a different, albeit
> > > radical, approach
> > > to the issue. I believe that this addresses many of the issues and
> > > questions brought by the Board, recognizes the value of
> > > "constituencies",
> > > and provides mechanisms for improving both the DNSO functions
> > > and output.
> > >
> > > A. Proposal Structure and Process
> > >          1. GA to elect ICANN board members directly
> > >                  1 person, 1 vote
> > >                  all elected at once
> > >                  runoff election to 6 nominees
> > >                  top 3 elected
> > >          2. Formal Constituencies Continue to Exist
> > >                  a. rationale
> > >                          1. natural communities of interest
> > >                          2. recognition of a specific stake
> > >                          3. encourage diversity of processes and views
> > >                  b. proposed role
> > >                          1. Provide discussion forum for
> > > constituency-specific concerns
> > >                          2. Develop constituency position papers for
> > > ublication to the Board, the GA, and Working Groups
> > >                          3. Participate in the creation of
> > > working groups
> > >                          4. Do outreach to currently
> > > non-involved parties
> > > who might have a stake
> > >                  c. creation and ongoing support
> > >                          1. Criteria for recognition
> > >                                  a. description of constituency
> > >                                  b. threshold # of GA members
> > > who wish to
> > > form it
> > >                                  c. immediate financial
> > > contribution of
> > > constituency (minimal = cost of setting up list, web
> > >                                     site, forums, and polls;
> > > and hosting
> > > for a year)
> > >                          2. Process of implementation
> > >                          3. Support requirements
> > >          3. GA to elect a chair and small exec committee
> > >                  a. role of chair
> > >                  b. role of executive committee
> > >          4. Working Groups provide the SO-wide research and consensus
> > > development process on substantive issues.
> > >                  a. creation
> > >                          1. board request
> > >                          2. executive committee request
> > >                          3. constituencies request - 3 or more?
> > >                          4. GA request - threshold of 25
> > > members requesting it?
> > >                  b. process
> > >          5. Financing and Resources
> > >                  a. secretariat
> > >                  b. funding
> > >                  c. required resources
> > > B. Questions and friction areas addressed by the proposal
> > >          Proper definition of GA function and role
> > >          facilitation of GA member participation in the GA
> > >          facilitation of Constituency member participation in the GA
> > >          facilitation of goals for constituencies
> > >          facilitation of consensus-building goals
> > >          inclusive representation
> > >          facilitation of outreach goals
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Greg
> > >
> > > sidna@feedwriter.com
> > >
> > >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html



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