[wg-review] Constituencies and GA Report #1 - Adoption Text For Vote

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

Constituencies and GA Report #1 -WG-Review Adoption Copy

This is a preliminary report has been submitted for adoption by WG-Review.
While the poll material is public and reflects as much objectivity as 
possible, the opinions and
conclusions drawn are the views of the author, and cannot be called "the 
results of the group" until the
group has discussed and ratified them and any changes that may be incorporated.

Material comes from group discussions and two polls - one run through
pollcat.com, and one run in a voting booth  designed for more secure results.

Caveat adapted from a post by Harald Alvestrand:
"There is a well known form of "consensus" building called "last man 
standing" - with interest in this area on the order of hundreds of 
thousands, and actual list membership in the +100s, a poll answered by a 
small group of  people based on an extremely busy mailing list needs a 
little justification before being taken as ground rules for further work.

That said, we believe the poll result is fairly representative of the 
people speaking up in this discussion, and probably a fair reflection of 
the feelings of a lot of people who have touched or participated in this 
process."
==============================
Constituencies - Core Issue
The core problem for many members of this WG is the issue of constituencies 
and representation. Substantial discussion has occurred on the topic of 
appropriate models for both group cohesion and selection of Names Council 
positions. Current results are unclear. On the "Domain Name Definition" 
Poll, responses to the question at present appear to be

Abolished = 17
Retained = 3
Don't Know = 3
Other = 3

Whereas, when asked in the constituency poll "Is a constituency structure a 
functional method for subgrouping in the DNSO?" the answers are

Yes = 14
No = 11
Don't Know = 7

Additionally, when asked "Does the current constituency structure impact 
the effectiveness of the DNSO and NC?" 26 respondents felt it impacted the 
effectiveness negatively, while only 2 believed it effected it positively. 
To a question on "should the constituencies be reformulated" 5 disagreed, 
while 22 believed they should be reformulated in some way.

This seems to indicate that the question needs a good bit more 
consideration, but based on this result it would tentatively appear that no 
consensus exists within this WG for the continuance of the current 
constituency structure. Indeed, a substantial majority of the responding WG 
members seem to favor some form of change. Currently questions are being 
reframed for a formal vote in the more secure voting booth environment, and 
further discussion has been scheduled

General Assembly - Core Issues
Of 13 respondents to the question "Is the function of the GA properly 
defined" 12 said "no" and one didn't know. Clearly the definition of the GA 
and it's tasks needs to be seriously addressed. Time has been scheduled for 
this discussion.

To the question "Should the GA be represented in the NC" 10 replied 
affirmitively, and one disagreed. To the question " If changes are made in 
the constituency structures, should the GA continue to exist?" there were 
11 in agreement, and no opposition. Though this would appear to be a 
consensus, the question was not cast in consensus form and is being 
reported as an 11-0 majority.

Greg Burton
co-chair, for
WG-Review

--
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