RE: [wg-review] A good start

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Marilyn,

The desire to eliminate "constituencies" is not necessarily deconstructive.
I believe that the ICANN constituency model is too ambiguously defined. Most
of us understand that, without well defined requirements, the results are
highly likely to be disappointing. After over a year of attempting to come
to some sort of agreement on what constituencies are, whom they represent,
and how they should work, I think that it is abundantly clear that we really
don't know what we (collectively) know what we're doing in that area.

Personal observation has lead me to believe that the current constituency
system is dividing our efforts and is also contributing to a great deal of
injustice, mis-representation, disenfranchisement, etc. In other words, the
negatives are vastly out-numbering the positives. This distraction of trying
to get something, that is currently dysfunctional, into operational order,
is something that we really should reconsider.

I am not advocating scrapping the idea forever, I am merely saying that we
should drop it, for now, consolidate everything under the GA, and take care
of immediate business (Verisign proposal, New.NET, etc.) before the DNSO is
totally discredited beyond redemption. That will also buy us more time to
really examine this constituency model, define it better, and install some
real "due process" into the system.

I would put forth that, forcing us to hold onto a failing model is
destructive.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:mcade@att.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 8:09 PM
> To: 'babybows.com'; wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [wg-review] A good start
> 
> 
> 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