Re: [ICANN-EU] Re: The Key Questions for Jeanette Hoffmann

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

Jeanette and all,

  What is really strange about Haralds statements that you quote here
Jeanette is that Harald was one of the strongest supporters of the
DNSO Constituency models as it is currently....

Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

> > Dear Jeanette,
> >
> > Thank you for your earlier reply on funding for the directors.
> >
> > Perhaps you needed some more time to ponder your reply to the questions
> > asked with regards to your position on the Individual DN holders'
> > Constituency for the DNSO.
>
> Indeed, I needed this time. Frankly, I am still not sure about the best
> answer to this question.
> On the one hand, it is easy to argue that, in principle, all kinds of DN
> holders should be given the opportunity to form their own
> constituency.
> On the other hand, it is exactly the constituency structure of the DNSO
> which causes a lot of problems.
> To quote a comprehensive comment  by Harald Alvestrand to the
> ga@dnso list:
>
> Date sent:      Wed, 30 Aug 2000 09:39:39 +0200
>
> Just for the record, I think that the constituency structure of
> the DNSO is a fundamental reason for the DNSO's problems.
>
> The constituency structure has led to:
>
> - Polarization, as those who are in the DNSO to represent a
> constituency feel obliged to serve that constituency's interests
> whether that makes sense in a global context or not
>
> - Underrepresentation, since many interested voices have trouble
> fitting into one or another of the constituencies
>
> - Overrepresentation, since many interested voices (Business and
> IP are the most obvious) find themselves natural parts of several
> constituencies
>
> - Misrepresentation, since the selection of a few people to act
> as spokesmen for a constituency obscures the sometimes
> significant differences of opinion within a constituency
>
> I believe part of the problems the DNSO has had in reaching
> anything like a consensus position on *anything* is rooted in the
> constituency structure. (It is also rooted in the presence of a
> number of very loud voices that should, on the basis of
> democratic process, be heard, but where the owners of the voices
> have neither the inclination nor the temperament to reach for
> consensus. Reaching consensus in a loud environment will always
> be hard.)
>
> The constituency structure is a failure and should be abandoned.
>
>               Harald
> --------------------- end of quote------------------------------
>
> According to the ga-dnso list, many people seem to agree with
> Harald's view.
> Thus, if the very structure of the DNSO turns out to be in itself a
> failure, would it be a good idea to cement this structure by proceeding
> to establish the constituency of individual domain name holders at this
> point? Or should this effort be temporarely deferred because the
> whole structure has been called into question?
> This is a tricky question. As far as I see there is no easy answer
> available at present.
>
> jeanette

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k 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 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208