RE: [wg-review] 11. IDNH Vote now - all those in favor

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Eric,
I am afraid you confuse the DNSO and the @large. This confusion has been
originated by a proposition and supported by bylaws tending at suppressing
a democractic representation of the stakeholders and a representing them
by so called "constituencies", ie easily hi-jackable groups electing NC
members.

On 02:31 12/01/01, Eric said:
>The fundamental issue is whether or not individuals need representation in
>DNSO.

today:

1. the ICANN starts correcting this through this long demanded by BoD
     WG-Review and accepted for a too short duration by the NC, and through
     a 2 years long study on the way to define and introduce @large.

2. This will most probably confirm the worldwide @large constituency which
     are all the individuals (not as a part of a small consulting 
organization, but
     as 50% of the ICANN power and 98% of its members). Does that suits you.
     It was tough to obtain.

What is required is within the DNSO (a SO is a simple consulting organization)
is not a representation of the individuals, but a representation of their 
global
needs. An individual representation to be democratic needs million of people
voting. To be qualified and operating per consensus an SO needs only a
few people *if all the needs* are present,  because even if one billion of 
users
votes something and only one person objects seriously there is no consensus.

Some rules may be added about 2/3, 80%, etc... for convenance in defining
the consensus: what has to be understood is they are not here as a vote
(a consensus means "all agree") they are a rought way to discriminante
if the objections are serious. I will take an example: when an XTML standard
  is agreed, if a disagreement stays, it is noted and then the decision is 
... by
Tim (one person only, for the entire world, just because he invented the Web).
The same reasoning with Thor Linus. Would you oject HTML or Linux are
not "democratic"?

We have to understand, accept, etc..  that if te WG-Review is to aby good jod
it is in putting and end to the undemocractic chase to NC seats. The DNSO is
or must be a responsible SO, like the others where DN related issues are at
last seriously discussed, and no more a system to elect NC Members witout
any production of interets (cf. Karl Auerbach)..

That is the reform. This will let the bylaws to be changed (very common at the
ICANN) mostly to come back to the initial situation.:

- the GA Chair is elected by the GA
- the constituency system is switched to the @large for reconsideration
- the NC is the college of Chairs of the Center of Interest
- anyone qualified interested in a Center of Interest and belonging to the
   GA may participate.to that CI
- a certain number of CI have been identified. The areas corresponding
   to the global concerns will probably need on or several CA where the
   Members of the existing constiututencies may participate.

I will finish with an example: the first problem we face for individual
Domain Name holders (because they are 75% of the domain name
owners) is the pollution of the Domain Name list. I did not even heard
the work here a single time. Do you think it serious?

Jefsey







--
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