[icann-eu] Re: [ga-review] Individuals' Constituency

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Joop and all,

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 11:40 5/05/01 -0400, Danny Younger wrote:
>
> >I would like to see the GA petition the Board for acceptance as a
> >Constituency in the Names Council.
> >
> >Let the discussion begin.
> >
>
> Thank you, Mr Chairman, for expressing your personal opinion as to a
> possible approach of representing Individual stakeholders.
>
> This idea (Greg Burton's , originally?) was expessed by myself in Melbourne
> as a possible compromise solution. Roberto seemed to like it, but it found
> no good reception in the NC. Even the NCDNHC, by mouth of Vany Martinez,
> was against it and preferred a specific self-organized constituency.

  I must agree with Vany's position as well.  It would seem that a take
over
of the DNSO GA by and IC would be a poor precedent to attempt to set.
It is widely known now Joop that this was discussed amongst a very few
in Melbourne.  As such, it would seem that such a "Take Over" would be
paramount to illigitimizing the GA and the DNSO as well.  Not a wise
idea.

>
>
> I think Vany's view  is right.  I have though about such a GA a lot.  The
> current GA is a poor substitute for an Individuals' constituency (IC) ,
> simply because all other stakeholders are represented there as well.
> Creating a "GA-Individuals' Constituency" (GIC) guarantees both an
> ineffective GA and a indecisive IC.

  Absolutely right.

>
>
> The GA will not represent any consensus position about Individual DN
> holders' rights, because it is in the interests of a powerful and highly
> interested minority to keep the GA divided on such issues and maintain the
> status quo.

  THe ICANN BoD and the NC have made it clear that there is not interest
on their part for individuals domain name holders to be represented been
though
they represent about 80% of all stakeholders.

>
>
> With  a chair who is partial to his own point of view, we may not see a GA
> that comes to express its majority will at all.

  It would seem that way yes.  And this was discussed during the Chair
elections.

>
>
> My own view is, that after the recognition in principle of an IC
> (Individuals' Constituency), the GA should strive to become a "Chamber of
> Representatives", much larger than the NC, but limited to , say,  300 members.

  Why only 300 members?

>
>
> A GA member will be required to
>
> 1. Agree with and follow the rules of decorum and civil discourse.

  GOod idea.  As long as those rules are decided by majority of the DNSO
GA members by vote.  And a legitimate vote!

>
> 2. (and this is of course open for debate)  prove  by endorsement that he
> represents at least 5 (open for debate--but the initial threshold should be
> low) other individuals.
>
> The endorsement numbers of each GA "candidate" should be publicly listed.
>
> In this way, we have created a position of  honour, service and obligation
> for each GA member and we increase the chance that the resolutions of the
> GA are taken more seriously, either by the NC, that should be elected by
> the GA and from GA members, and by the Board.

  No, the elected NC representatives should be elected ONLY by the GA
members.

>
>
> My 2 cts.
> It may be a good idea e to continue the discussion on the future shape and
> role of the GA on the GA-review list.
>
> --Joop--
> Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
> Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
> Developer of    The Polling Booth
> www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208