On Mon, May 31, 1999 at 10:16:59PM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
[...]
> >
> >Yes. And this misunderstanding is behind the misguided idea of an
> >"Individual Constituency", as well.
> >
> The Paris Draft, which I supported, places the General Assembly at the
> heart and the top of the DNSO.
> When ICANN came with *its* structure in Singapore, and came with 6
> constituencies that do not care for DN owners's interests and one
> non-commercial one that is for organizations and thus a recipe for on-going
> trench warfare, the creation of an Individual DN owners constituency was
> seen as necessary to look after typical interests of Individual DN owners,
The Paris Draft had constituencies. It excluded an individual
constituency. It put half the power in the registrars/registries.
[...]
> Misguided? A hundred individuals have quickly gathered to say otherwise.
BTW, I signed up for your individual constituency mailing list,
but I haven't seen any traffic at all...did I get booted off, or is
there just no traffic? If I have been removed, let me know and I
will re-subscribe...
[...]
> >On the other hand, there are many individuals who may
> >not have a personally registered domain who are very interested in
> >domain name issues -- do we need a constituency for them, as well?
>
> If you know them, show them to me , Kent.
> Mostly they are people who are interested in getting a DN.
> In other words, stateholders or potential stakeholders.
>
> If not, the at large representation has been created for "people who are
> interested in DN issues".
> They can even elect 9 Board Members.
Indeed. We have the At Large membership, and the General Assembly of
the DNSO. So tell me again why we need an "Individual Constituency"
of the DNSO?
Maybe we do, but I have not yet seen an argument for it.
As you may recall, I have argued quite strongly for individual
representation in the past. But I don't anymore, because I WON that
argument. My was to get about a 50/50 power split between
organizations and individuals, and, lookie lookie, that's exactly
what we have! The particular structure isn't perfect, but that is
really just a third order detail -- no structure could be perfect.
But when you step back and look at the big picture, the fundamental
pieces are in place.
Furthermore, power is fungible. It flows through whatever channels
are available. At this point (though it hasn't been completely
actualized) the whole ICANN structure gives a great deal of power to
individuals.
> >The inspiration for the General Assembly was the IETF -- where
> >*any interested individual* can participate. People are hung up on
> >representation in the Names Council.
> >
> Because the general assembly has been subjected to the NC, in the new
> structure.
"Subjected to???" It says that the purpose of the NC is to "manage
consensus", just as the Paris Draft did.
> >> Whether a substantive policy proposal should be adopted is measured by
> >> the degree of consensus in the General Assembly. This is in keeping with
> >> the bottom-up decision-making style that should characterize the DNSO.
> >
> >Yep.
> O.K. then the DNSO bylaws need revisiting.
Perhaps, but it isn't clear at this point.
> Did that "yep" represent all of CORE/PAB?POC? That would be a breakthrough.
I don't speak for CORE/PAB/POC -- I only speak for myself. (If, in
the unlikely event that PAB were to produce something like a formal
statement, it would be clearly labeled as such.)
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
