Re: [wg-review] DNSO recommendations

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

The DNSO model I support is rather simple and not
so different from the existing one - once the voting
aspects have been changed.

1. The DNSO is to be a Consultant to the BoD on DN
     issues. Only DN holders should be allowed as members.

2. The DNSO is made of the GA.

3. The GA Members may create Special Interest Groups
     of different kinds (Clubs, Interest Centers, Associations,
     etc.. The existing Constituencies should stay unaffected
     as SIGs.) SIGs may chose their own rules. Every declared
     SIG (even not yet/no more acknowledged by the GA) has
     a right to a DNSO mailing list and sub-site.

4. The NC is a coordination list gathering SIG's Chairs.
     Acceptation of SIG within the NC is voted by the GA
     annually or at the demand of 10% of the GA Members.

5. The BoD Members are elected by the GA. Nominations
     must be seconded by the a certain number of NC
     Members (so candidates are serious enough and
     acknowledged by the community).  One of the
     Directors elect will have to represent a ccTLDs.

6. Chair and co-Chair of the GA are nominated by GA
     Members and elected by GA Members.

7. Reports to the BoD can be refused by the NC for poor
     quality or lack of consensus. Such refusal shall call
     on 2 vetoes by two GA accepted SIG.

8. DNSO will be informed of every DN related issue and
     commercial negotiation. No DN related decision will
     be taken by the BoD without preceding conclusions
     by the DNSO. Emergency decision will be possible,
     but for a limited period of time.

Jefsey


On 07:31 16/03/01, Sotiropoulos said:
>All,
>
>Broadly speaking, I believe it is possible to
>identify the following general Topics of Interest
>with reference to proposals/recommendations
>relating to the process/structure of the DNSO
>(please bear in mind that the list is loosely
>based on the discussions within this WG to date
>and is not to be understood as
>comprehensive/exhaustive):
>
>1) Those in favour of abolition of Constituency
>structure altogether with
>         a)a reintegration into an undefined mass GA
>electorate or,
>         b)a restructuring into a Constituency
>organization along ccTLD lines (i.e. national) or,
>         c)a reformulation into a representative,
>two-level parliamentary organization.
>2) Those in favour of the Status Quo within the
>DNSO.
>3) Those in favour of modifications to the
>existing structure (i.e. creation of additional
>Constituencies to be grafted into the current
>organization) without much change to the overall
>structure.
>4) Those in favour of a restructuring of the DNSO
>as a whole, according to a novel set of
>procedures/principles.
>
>If anyone has any comments/corrections on these
>divisions, and/or any additions to make to this
>list, please feel free to post your suggestions.
>I am merely trying to set up a structure which
>will help to identify and facilitate pertinent
>topics of discussion which may aid us in the
>formulation of as wide an array of considerations
>as possible.
>
>Regards,
>
>Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>         Hermes Network, Inc.
>--
>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