[atlarge-discuss] Re: Constituency

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

Joop,
regarding the questions you have posed:

Q1.  Do you believe that DN Holders will have more influence on ICANN 
policymaking via the new GNSO than via the indirect chance to get 
Individual-Registrant friendly directors on the Board?
A1.  I don't believe that any actions that we might take will result in 
getting Individual-Registrant friendly directors on the Board -- the deck has 
been stacked against us already in order to ensure a self-perpetuating Board. 
 I also believe that certain constituencies will do their utmost to limit the 
influence that might be enjoyed by this new constituency.

Q2.  Do you believe that there is a reasonable chance that the current Board 
will now approve a Petition that was ignored (I'm not saying "rejected") 3 
years ago, when they were less in siege-mode?  
A2.  The chance is poor (as the Board will continue to "confuse" the at-large 
with such a constituency).  Further, as the majority of the Board will be 
drawn from the combination of GNSO candidates and from the Nominating 
Committee which is dominated by GNSO representatives, our chances of success 
are diminished further (as few within the GNSO supported any prior 
initiatives to launch such a constituency).  Whether or not the chance is 
reasonable, we have a right to initiate such a process.  I look forward to 
exercising that right.

Q3.  Do you believe that both efforts can proceed at the same time, without 
one being a distraction to the other?
A3.  Yes, I and others are capable of multi-tasking.

Q4.  Would you go along with a constituency that is little more than an 
umbrella structure (just like I would want it for the At Large)?
A4.  We have seen prior efforts that were too caught up in process (with 
members spending the bulk of their time in parliamentarian discussion rather 
than on policy discussion), and we have seen the fruits of too little 
structure.  Personally, I would like to look at the Charters of the current 
constituencies, pick out one that seems to work well, and then modify it 
according to the needs of this new constituent group.  That basically means 
officers and GNSO council representatives just like every other constituency 
-- it does not imply a governing Board or Panel.  

Q5.  Would you go along with a constituency that accepts a multi-party 
democracy (ditto)?
A5.  Joop, you have always been keen on building democratic structures.  My 
interests lie elsewhere.  The only thing that really matters to me is that 
when a topic is under discussion, all views (both majority and minority) are 
put forth in a document that makes its way up to the ICANN Board.  If you 
want parties, go ahead and have parties -- it makes little difference to me.  
I won't object.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de