RE: [wg-review] 11. IDNH

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|>-----Original Message-----
|>From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
|>Behalf Of Greg Burton
|>Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 4:05 AM
|>To: wg Review list
|>Subject: [wg-review] 11. IDNH
|>
|>
|>It seems clear that there is widespread - almost consensus -
|>support for us to recommend a constituency of some kind here.

The concerns I have about the way the DNSO views constituencies
revolve around the management model as it appears to be evolving.  It
seems to me that the DNSO views constituencies as the only layer that
can be established.  I see it as only the beginning layer.

For instance, I would much rather see a large number of constituencies
formed, with criteria on membership numbers to enable voting in the
next layer that would be added once the constituency layer filled out
and it became necessary.  I see the constituency layer as being the
bottom layer with successive layers added as the need arises.  Each
layer with representation from the previous layer until we get to the
top layer where interaction with ICANN is established.

At present I see the DNSO following very restrictive practices that
will not enable active participation by a majority of players.  It
would appear to be producing a structure that is limiting for
participation and will become a management nightmare.

I do support adding more constituencies.  In fact the more there are,
the happier I will be.  They should be the ground swell to fill the
ranks for widespread participation.  Representatives from them would
then enable the establishing of another layer and so forth.  This will
provide a good management model that will be must easier to maintain
and would provide for greater outcomes.

Dassa

--
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