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

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>]

I think that Dassa's submission should be sent along as just what it is a proposal for the beginning of real progress toward building the constituencies.  The comments regarding it should also be sent along and encouraged.  I would like to see a reduction in the required numbers, a one-year grandfathering clause, and a revamping of the layers toward a more direct cause and effect election type model.

Sincerely,

Dassa wrote:

> |>-----Original Message-----
> |>From: On Behalf Of DPF
> |>Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 4:35 PM
> |>Subject: Re: [wg-review] Submission One for Wg-Review, The DNSO Constituencies. - Dassa.
> |>
> |>On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 21:57:22 +1100, Dassa wrote:
> |>
> |>>1.0 The DNSO set a mimimum membership level for any constituency at 500 members.
> |>
> |>That would make it impossible for the ccTLDs.
>
> No not impossible, they would need to change their membership structure however.  But the 500 figure is only a starting point as is the whole document.  It is good to discuss such matters.
>
> |>>2.0 Name Council Representatives are elected from within the Constituency Assembly,
> |>>not directly from the Constituencies.
> |>
> |>This can lead to total control of Names Council with one constituency.
> |>Let's say one constituency ends up with 5,000 members and the other
> |>seven have 500 each.  The Constituency Assembly would have 17 members
> |>and the one large constituency would have an absolute majority to
> |>appoint the entire Names Council.
>
> Under the scheme I suggested the Constituency would be split when it reached the 2,000 mark.  Whilst growing from 1,000 to 2,000 they would only be allowed 10 representatives.  The other Constitituencies would be aware of the growth and could attempt increasing their own memberships.  I would prefer to see natural tendencies to limit any one Constituency gaining too much control and I feel it would be difficult for any one Constituency, once split, to maintain the levels of loyalty and control to do what you suggest.  It would also be up to the other Constituencies to ensure this didn't happen.  Natural laws of competition.  However, there could always be limiting factors introduced to prevent one Constituency from controlling the Names Council, such things as geographic diversity etc, although personally, I would prefer to leave the possibilities open and to not introduce any more limits than absolutely necessary.  If one Constituency can reach the membership levels and have !
> the necessary team to accomplish such control of the Names Council, perhaps they would be the best people to have in those positions.
>
> |>>This submission is made in the form of ideas for discussion
> |>>and consideration.
> |>
> |>While disagreeing with some, there is much worth considering.
>
> I'm glad to see that some people consider a few of these ideas worth exploring.  I hope to see more discussion on the topics that people may disagree with.  I'm sorry, the draft was rough and I didn't have time to expand a lot of points.  Hopefully we can work on some of those in the WG-Review.
>
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
>
> --
> 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