[wg-review] Submission One for Wg-Review, The DNSO Constituencies. - Dassa.

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

Submission One for WG-Review, The DNSO Constituencies
----------------------------------------------------
Darryl (Dassa) Lynch January 2001.

Preamble
--------
The current constituency structure within the DNSO if very rigid and from all appearances, not truly representative.  There  is continued dissatisfaction within the Internet community for, and a lack of understanding of, the DNSO.  The following  submission deals with some specific aspects of the constituency structure but is not purported to be a complete solution,  only the basis for a possible start in the right directions.

Possible Structure
------------------
It is noted the current constituencies within the DNSO have low member numbers.  As such, the writer does not see them as  being representative. This is one of the first constituency issue that needs to be addressed.  Nor are all possible groups  accounted for with the current constituency structure.  There would appear to be some artificial barriers in place to limit  true representation.

I propose a reform of the current constituency model to the following:

1.0 The DNSO set a mimimum membership level for any constituency at 500 members.  
1.1 For each 100 members within a constituency one representative be elected within the constituency to a Constituency  Assembly.  
1.2 No one constituency to have more than 10 such elected representatives within the Constituency Assembly.
1.3 Membership to any and all constituencies to be open to individuals that qualify for such membership.  Given the  understanding effective participation levels will be limited to a few such memberships due to time and resource constraints,  this has a natural limiting factor built in.
1.4 Memberships to be confirmed for voting priviliges at the local constituency level and information provided to undergo  strict privacy guidelines without any such information being available aside from confirmation of membership.  A land postal  response to a specified mailing address would seem the simplest to implement, much like the AtLarge induction.  
2.0 Name Council Representatives are elected from within the Constituency Assembly, not directly from the Constituencies.   This adds another layer to the progression from Constituency to the Names Council.  Such a layer would allow for the  selection of best candidates for each Names Council position.  It would also force more adhesion and association between the  different representatives of the Constituencies.  It would also allow for truer representation at the Names Council Level as  it would directly relate to the membership numbers within the Constituencies.
3.0 If a Constituency gains a membership level of 2000 or over, such Constituency will be split into two seperate and  distinct constituencies.  Such a split to maintain small conhesive groups that will be possible for the constituencies to  manage successfully.  It would also allow the new constituency to maintain representation in the Constituency Assembly.  This  provision allows for growth in participation and representation.
4.0 The DNSO to provide each Constituency with a mimimum Constitution including all mimimal management aspects for a  Constituency to manage their affairs.  This will allow for uniform miminal constitutions to be adopted by the constituencies.
4.1 The initial application of the proposed constituency to include a complete Constitution for approval by the Constituency  Assembly.
4.2 Changes to a Constituency Constitution be permitted only after approval from the Constituency Assembly.
5.0 The initial submission for inclusion as a Constituency involve the Constituency Assembly, this may include the full  approval process or be an adjunct to the final approval at a higher level.
6.0 The Constituency Assembly to institute auditing of the Constituencies to confirm membership numbers on a regular basis.
7.0 The number of representatives on the Constitution Assembly to be maintained at the correct ratio to membership numbers at  all times.
8.0 If a Constituency membership falls below 500, they will loose recognition of being a Constituency and representation on  the Constituency Assembly.


This submission is made in the form of ideas for discussion and consideration.  The writers contention being that true  representation is only accomplished by including the highest possible numbers of participants.  Such participation to be  accomplished at the lower level of a Constituency and then progressing upwards through layers to the Names Council and final  representation.

All expenses at the Constituency level to be maintained at the local level, including set up and submission for recognition  and support for the Names Council.  Supporting expenses for the Names Council to be set on the basis of the number of  representatives from the Constituency that are seated in the Constituency Assembly.  This figure to be standard across all  Constituency Assembly members.

The writer realises this is only a rough draft document and that procedures outlined here need a great deal of work to make  them practical.  It is hoped these ideas will be given some consideration and generate discussion.  They are offered as a  constructive attempt to provide an alternative structure to the current system.

One of the principles behind these suggestions is that no artificial limits be imposed on the membership criteria for  constituencies.  If clearly defined membership criteria is established at the constituency level and they meet other  criteria, then any and all groups should expect equal consideration for their submission.



--
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