RE: [wg-review] A good start

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Marilyn,
I certainly do not suggest "blowing up" the constituency model.
Actually I just propose to make it understandable.

I explain.

The real problem is the word "constituency" which carries two
meanings:

-  a special interest group (99% of the time) what I want
    to enforce and develop in forms adapted to each case (look at
    the way the DNSO/BC is different from the ccTLDs) so the list
    of managed concerns/working groups is not the only result of
    a decision a long ago, but sticking to the real life.

-  a voting capacity used once a year for NC and BoD.
    This lead to focus on seats at the NC instead on competences
    from the SIGs. ccTLDs/NICs have shown this is quite detrimental
    to everyone and may lead to the blowing up of the whole iCANN.

    I just say a revision of the NC so every SIG delegates their
    Chair provided the smoothness and the pragmatism we need.
    I also feel it may help large SIG as DNSO/BC in:
    - creating ad-hoc center of interests
    - liaising with other SIGs trhough these center of interest
    - creating more interest for the DNSO
    - investigating new isses more easily. I have posted several
      responses to Maca Jamin demands for inputs. I NEVER
      saw hem published, nor even acknowledged. Not very
      exciting.

Now, Marilyn there are two ways:

- we try to enforce the statu-quo and Interest Centers are
   created within the GA and will soon outsmart the NC and
   create confusion or lead to a general leak of interest for
   the DNSO

- you take advantage from the people interest shown in the
   WG-Review which is still quite active and pragmatically
   adapt to reality and people's demand.

I think my proposition is nothing more.
Jefsey


On 05:08 18/03/01, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA said:
>I don't support blowing up the existing constituency model, just because
>there are issues or concerns by some.  In fact, the DNSO is a "young"
>organization, and needs time to mature and change, as needed, to represent
>the full set of stakeholders.
>
>My goal is to be part of constructive change.
>
>Marilyn
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: babybows.com [mailto:webmaster@babybows.com]
>Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 8:21 PM
>To: wg-review@dnso.org
>Subject: [wg-review] A good start
>
>
>Jefsey Morfin has presented a reasonably well-defined structural model that
>incorporates the views of many in this Working Group that supported the
>abolition of the Constituency model, myself included.  I am confident that
>in the time allowed, it will be possible to make whatever necessary
>refinements are required by this model to ensure adequate representational
>mechanisms.
>
>As part of this working group will now focus on this first proposal, it will
>become increasingly important for advocates of the
>expanded/more-representative Constituency model to present their case as
>well, so that we may all ultimately weigh the relative merits of each
>clearly-defined and well-articulated proposal.
>
>I remind you, in the end, we will need consensus.
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>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

--
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