ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[wg-review]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[wg-review] Back to the point -Constituencies


In my submission, I advocated against having formal constituencies.;
1) We don't really know what they are
2) How to build them
3) How to authorize them
3) How to organize them
4) How to apportion their politcal weight.
 
While Dassa's submission has some merit (I'm still going over it, it's a lotta work). It still assumes a need for heirarchical structure. Yes, it scales. However, due to it's size, getting consensus on it is problematic. Especially within the time-frame. We simply haven't the time to get the buy-in.
 
Getting rid of them now, folding all the power into the GA, and assigning working groups to do that job the way it ought to be done, is more sensible and practicable, IMHO. Then, when we have the membership that warrants such scalibility, we will be ready with a better defined idea of how constituencies work or should work. Shucks, we may even have consensus on them, by then.
 
It is clear to me, now, that the current constituency system is severely broken, for all definitions of "broken", and should be done away with.

--
ROELAND M.J. MEYER
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
TEL: +001 925 373 3954
FAX: +001 925 373 9781
http://www.mhsc.com
mailto: rmeyer@mhsc.com

 


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>