RE: [wg-review] Constituencies

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

The problem is that, such a move requires a leap of faith and trust. The BoD
is not so athletic.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dassa [mailto:dassa@dhs.org]
> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 12:24 AM
> To: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [wg-review] Constituencies
> 
> 
> |>-----Original Message-----
> |>From: On Behalf Of Kent Crispin
> |>Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 1:51 AM
> |>Subject: Re: [wg-review] Constituencies
> |>
> |>The "fluid constituencies" model was discarded as unworkable. 
> |> It's one of those things that sounds good at a shallow 
> level, but when 
> |>you got to the details no one could figure out a way for it 
> to work.  It sounds
> |>good, but in fact it changes the voting structure, which means it
> |>changes the decision mechanism, which means that the decision 
> |>process is in relatively constant flux, which means 
> ultimately that you need
> |>someone to oversee the constituency changes, but who would 
> |>that be? The ICANN board was frequently cited as the 
> ultimate oversight body for
> |>constituency changes, but the ICANN board simply didn't want to be
> |>involved in overseeing a constantly changing structure. 
> 
> I would suspect it was discarded as unworkable as it would be 
> very difficult to control.  If you approach all the problems 
> attributed to the model in a systematic manner, it is not 
> unworkable.  That is unless there is an insistance the model 
> not be empowered to be self sufficient and control itself.
> 
> 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